On this edition of Real Politik James is joined by Peter Janney, author of Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace. The book tells the story of Dr. Janney’s relationship with Pinchot Meyer and the quest to resolve her murder, the implications of which figure centrally in further explaining what took place on November 22, 1963.
Dr. Janney is the son of Wistar Janney, a senior career CIA official. The Janney family was among many of Washington’s social and political elite that included the family of Mary and Cord Meyer, as well as other high-ranking CIA officials, including Richard Helms, Jim Angleton, Tracy Barnes, Desmond FitzGerald, and William Colby.
Janney is a graduate of Princeton University, he earned a doctoral degree in psychology at Boston University in 1981, and has been a practicing psychologist and consultant for over 30 years. In 2002, Dr. Janney completed an MBA degree at Duke University.
Janney situates the storyline of Mary’s Mosaic to “the mid-to-late fall of 1960, right after [Kennedy] won the election. It was at that point that really something qualitatively changed,” between JFK and Mary Pinchot Meyer, who had known each other for over twenty years.
I think Mary was, of course, interested in Jack’s new-found status as the President of the United States. But he had always been taken with her, and what happened in the next three years is what I try to write about in the book. It has to do with her influence on President Kennedy and, in a sense, it became a relationship of redemption for President Kennedy.
Along these lines, Janney argues that Meyer was likely the first woman JFK identified with intellectually and perhaps also spiritually. “As most people know now JFK had a real problem with intimacy with women,” he notes. “In today’s parlance it would be called a sexual addiction.” Must has been written about Kennedy’s sexual dalliances.
But when Mary came into his life she was someone who he grew to respect very quickly. And I think that’s because she was very independent. She did not need a man in her life. She was independently wealthy as well. I think she offered Jack a chance to really explore what having a real relationship with a woman might be about. This went on through his entire presidency. They were lovers, and then simultaneously she became very instrumental in helping him understand what he was up against in terms of things like the CIA and the Pentagon, and how they were trying to manipulate him. I think she really helped him wake up to a large extent.
Mary Meyer was brutally murdered with a handgun in broad daylight on October 12, 1964. An African-American day laborer, Roy Crump Jr., was prosecuted for the killing and successfully defended by legendary African-American attorney Dovey Roundtree.
In January 2014 Janney deposed William Mitchell as part of a wrongful death civil lawsuit to procure information on Mitchell’s potential responsibility for Meyer’s murder. “I am still in the last stages of my research that I hope will pull the pieces together that may point to the fact that [William] Mitchell had a specific role in this event on October 12, 1964. But I do want to make clear that I no longer believe that he was the actual assassin.”
On Jim Douglas’ important 2008 work, JFK and the Unspeakable:
I really think this is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the pivotal decade of the 1960s, and why it has set the stage ultimately for where we are today. The world would have been a far different place had Kennedy lived. He clearly would have won the 1964 election, and with that we would not have had the conflict in Vietnam and Southeast Asia that we had. I think so many things would have been different, including a real trajectory of nuclear disarmament and a kind of new-found relationship with the Soviet Union that really would have underscored the importance of everyone working toward world peace and all the initiatives that could have taken place during that time.
An important influence on Dr. Janney’s research was Leo Damore, author of Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Coverup, who was working on a book probing Meyers’ death and had already gathered a good deal of information relating to Meyers’ death. “I was not that up on things when I met with Leo, and he shared with me a great deal of what was going on in Mary’s life, and particularly in Mary and Jack’s life,” Janney observes. Yet Damore’s untimely emotional disintegration and passing coincided with his progress on the Meyer case.
Now the interesting thing is that as Leo got closer to finishing this book he started to undergo a profound agitated depression. I think he became increasingly paranoid. He believed someone had poisoned him, and eventually he took his own life in an apparent suicide. I use the word apparent, because I think he was really pushed to it. It’s clear now from congressional testimony that the CIA had a whole arsenal of chemicals, drugs, that could do almost anything—push people into suicidal depression, give them cancer, render them incapacitated in any way, shape or form … My disposition is, in terms of everything I know about Leo, and having gotten hold of his diaries through his family, is that the CIA was really on to Leo and what he was about to uncover. I believe his suicide was not an accident. As one very famous CIA asset said, “Anyone can commit a murder, but it takes an expert to commit a suicide.”
So, why doesn’t the American public as a whole understand the real history underlying the tragic deaths of JFK and Mary Pinchot Meyer? According to Janney, over the past sixty or so years the National Security State has acted to undermine public opinion through its infiltration of the news media. Such actions have been absolutely necessary in terms of pulling off major political assassinations on US soil.
We don’t have a free press in this country anymore. One could argue that possibly we never did, although I think since the CIA came into inception, particularly in the 1950s, we had more of a free press that we certainly have today. It’s really clear that the mainstream media is scripted by the national security apparatus. You don’t hear them talking about alternative theories of what really happened to the World Trade [Center] on 9/11. That wouldn’t be allowed, right? And you didn’t hear anything in 2013 at the fiftieth anniversary of JFK’s assassination. There was no talk of alternative theories about what really happened. There was just so much emphasis put on the ‘fact’ that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin, when in fact he never fired a shot.
A case in point involves Washington Post publisher Phillip Graham, who supposedly committed suicide in August 1963. Similar to the unexpected death of Leo Damore, the political circumstances that served as a background for Graham’s death fit the template of a possible CIA-orchestrated “suicide.”
You have to understand, the one thing the CIA needed to pull off the JFK assassination was a media that would be totally supportive of whatever the government’s case wanted to be. They couldn’t have someone as prolific and prominent out there saying, ‘Well, we have to look at some other possibilities here. Maybe Oswald didn’t do it.’ And, of course, Mary Meyer was a friend of Phil Graham’s. If she had gone to him and said, “Phil, I’ve got evidence that this was not the case. Oswald was not the culprit. He was really the patsy,” you better believe that Phil Graham would have listened to her. If he had been running the Washington Post, the post would not have been necessarily supportive of the government’s case. With Katherine Graham on board, ever since the Kennedy assassination she has pretty much taken the position of whatever the government wants to have portrayed in the media. That, I think, is a really sad commentary.
Dr. Janney will be speaking at the Assassination Archives Research Center’s conference acknowledging the 50th anniversary of the Warren Commission Report’s official release. The conference takes place from September 25 to 28 in Bethesda, Maryland. Additional information on the conference is available here.
31 thought on “The Murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer”
Excellent and sobering topic I’m ashamed to say that as at lifelong reader of the Kennedy story and coverup, I’ve never seen, or don’t remember seeing, Mary’s name before. Ordering the book now, and look forward to listening to the interview.
Reblogged this on Today,s Thought.
I don’t know if I’ve asked this recently or not, it’s been a long week, but does anyone know why JFK was able to be so defiant of the people pulling the purse strings aka YKW?
Truman got bought off during his campaign as he needed the money to win, money being the key factor in winning elections.
What gave JFK such a cavalier attitude? Why couldn’t he be bought off? Were the catholics really able to rig the voting in their inner city democratic machines? Someone said Joe Kennedy had amassed such a fortune that JFK kind of didn’t need money? Is this true? How did Joe make so much money? I know he was involved in bootlegging, etc. during Prohibition…but somehow he amassed enough to do what no other president since at least before Truman had done?
I’m wondering about how American prudishness about sex and extramarital affairs figures into the MPM case.
Yes, of course, the CIA or TPTB wanted to silence her so that she wouldn’t reveal details about JFK and his presidency, such as mob relations, LBJ’s manipulation and backstabbing, the Bay of Pigs, his secret communications with Kruschev, Vietnam, JFK’s LSD use, plans for “world peace”, etal.
But wouldn’t the TPTB also want to get rid of her to stop her from tarnishing the office of the presidency?
Sure, presidents have been having affairs for a long time both before and after, but none have been so busy and indiscreet as JFK. Most of JFK’s involvements were brief and for sex and/or conquest and thrill, with the possible exception of Judith Exner. And most of the women were meek figures who would keep their mouths shut. MPM seems an exception, a strong-willed, independent person who might reveal their affair in public.
Americans were an uptight, puritanical people in the 1960s, and to a certain extent they still are. They will not elect presidents who are divorced, have affairs, or who drink or smoke. The President in particular is the “ideal American” – he is virtuous, absolutely faithful to family and friends, always truthful, and unerring in judgment. He is white, male, physically healthy (except war and football injuries, tall, and never grey or bald A president can bomb, imprison,invade, imprison and torture – but as long as he is personally “virtuous” and part of a loving nuclear family all is overlooked.
So isn’t it possible (perhaps as a secondary motive) that the TPTB eliminated MPM to preserve the ideal image of JFK and succeeding presidents, in order to maintain the power of the office, so that TPTB can do business as usual?
The mainstream media readily cooperates in this plan to preserve the “Presidential Myth.” They have suppressed all manner of bad or “immoral” personal behavior by presidents, except when it cannot be denied, as in the cases of Nixon and Clinton. The press suppressed the mistresses of LBJ and Bush Senior, and have been reluctant to acknowledge JFK’s affairs until only recently (it would be interesting to know when the MSM first referred to JFK’s dalliances and affairs as established facts.) This prurience includes the left-leaning side of the press too. I notice that Seymour Hersh’s Dark Side of Camelot (1997) has not a single reference to MPM, and not much if anything on his trysts (such as with his intern) while he was in office, except for Ellen Rometsch. The first MPM book came out in 1998 – surely Hersh must have known something about her.
Thanks for the detailed comment.
Interested to know what your observations may be, perhaps after having listened to the interview, read Mary’s Mosaic and/or Jim Douglas’ JFK and the Unspeakable.
Another good interview and reason to read more books!
Dang, just a few credits short from a degree, wouldn’t some university give credits for self study? Never mind, it have already been demonstrated, the more degrees you have, the less likely you will be open to the truth!
I’m not trying to ‘hijack’ this thread, I just haven’t had time to listen yet…plus I find exploring JFK’s sex life uncomfortable.
But in the meantime, Edgar Steele has died in a California state prison. He was allegedly set up by the FBI for hiring a hit on his wife. Sources I trust who are aware but not really affiliated with the pro-white movement say he actually was. The court happenings support this contention. He was a lawyer who defended whites. I don’t know too much about him but his case looks like an interesting one to explore. The government can kill anyone they want, I suppose, but in the case of Steele they wanted to discredit him, it seems, before doing so. In prison he was denied rights and seriously abused. Most think during his trial he was drugged, and that both the judge and defense attorney were ‘in on it.’
This is totally not about exploring JFK’s sex life, just love it when ‘commenters’ think they have something to say, but do not have the time to review what was said.
Uh, I’m actually quite interested in the issue and have studied a fair amount on JFK’s murder. I’ve also heard a lot about his sexual exploits and of his dealings with women. I’m mostly irish catholic. It’s not only hard to know what’s true and not true (Gore Vidal’s likely imaginings come to mind), it’s also uncomfortable to face that the irish catholics do have major issues with women. So eff off. If you think someone’s going to discuss JFK’s love life without the average person relating it to the endless stories of his alleged endless sex drive, you’re clueless.
What the author is examining, and what is addressed in the interview, however brief, is somewhat more complex. At no point does Janney, a trained psychologist, relate JFK’s romantic or sexual life to his religion or ethnicity. Perhaps we should either engage with the literature and discussion, or simply find another forum to engage in.
Frankly, after having observed your comments for some time, and noting this clear violation of the MHB civility code, in addition to the disingenuous assertion that you are “not seeking to hijack this thread” in a post above, I must conclude that all of my suspicions have been confirmed and ask that you please refrain from further comments, here or elsewhere on this blog.
Just the name of the book shares what it is about: “Mary’s Mosaic: The C.I.A. Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace.” Yet the strength of the book comes from Peter Janney’s own experience, and his scholarship in writing a well researched book. He does a masterful job documenting the significance of Mary Pinchot Meyer and her relationship with President Kennedy, especially following the short years left remaining after the close call of the Cuban missile crisis. I interviewed Peter Janney last year and posted it on youtube.. http://youtu.be/ZjtigDOEIeo
There has been much discussion of the witnesses being murdered after the Kennedy assassination. What is implied in the article about Phil Graham is that potential witnesses were killed BEFORE the assassination. This is the first time I’ve seen this raised.
I have Hersh’s DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT among too many books. He is a good investigative reporter. However, I am sorry to say, he dishonestly disparages the idea of a conspiracy in his death. I don’t know whether this was necessary to get the book published, but it does not increase respect for anything else he might say.
Who or what is TPTB stated by commenter SW Bob? The notion that Kennedy’s and all the other murders were motivated by the attempt to protect the integrity of the Presidency is an idea whose time has not yet come. But as the American mainstream truth consensus continues to degenerate, it might.
Hersh says, “In the five years of reporting for this book, I found nothing that would change the instinctive conclusions of Julius Draznin and the much more detailed findings of the Warren Commission–Oswald and Ruby acted alone.” p. 451
One need not be gifted with extraordinary discernment to conclude that something is “off” with regards to traditional news media outlets. There is a well followed and maintained formula; a plastic surgery accomplished, if you will, which has evolved from at least the 1950s to present day.
The complete control today by the Powers of MSM news organizations
(and their affiliates) for my dollar is incontrovertible. Where I scratch my head a bit is, when did the control become full blown? When did it become somewhat foolish to believe what you have read or heard on the radio or TV?
I do not recall as a young child of the 60’s, either personally through family or nationally, any challenges to what was reported to have occurred in Dallas that day.
It seems to me that Warren Commissions are a relic of a bygone era. Yes, I understand it was a president who was killed. But we were told by all the major news sources that twenty 5-7 year olds were torn to pieces with an AR-15 in an elementary school…and anyone who questioned it was pounced on and labeled as heartless scum.
CNN is the new, instant, Warren Commission.
I’m gong to take an educated guess and say sometime after Watergate, when it was found that investigative reporting could and would damage the presidency. Also, during the 80’s and 90’s there was a lot of buying of the independent media sources funneling it all into one monolith that does the news on a corporate basis whether you are in Seattle or St. Louie…Gannett is one of those kind of companies.
Joseph,you might research the history of Th Council of Foreign Relations as to that bodies enslavement of the American Press,if you haven’t already. This seems to have been going on for much longer than many imagined.
(The Council On Foreign Relations,or CFR)
james–of assistance http://www.oswald-innocent.com/
My sense from my readings on the JFK assassination is that he decided to actually be a leader when the expectation was that he would do as he was told.
Of the myriad “enemies” various people have indicted, it seems to me that the issue may be more one of what happens when a duly installed figurehead refuses to cooperate.
Certainly the “secret government” largely orchestrated by the CIA, had many reasons to eliminate him. “Organized crime” (usually thought of as separate and distinct), really is more closely connected to TPTB than most think.
While I’m as curious as anyone else to know the perpetrator, it appears clear to me at least that he had an epiphany at some point. His acquaintances (sexual or otherwise) would certainly become items of interest for the CIA and FBI.
There are several possible scenarios for Ms. Meyer’s gruesome end. It seems without doubt that it wasn’t a “coincidence”. On the other hand, some of his other dalliances survived.
I believe that there was a period of genuine panic when they came to know that their president was a ‘wild card”. It’s one thing to play the role on TV, its another to practice what you preach.
Mary Meyer is not in the index. I hope Hersh is not this devious in his foreign reportage.
Just a final thought, in listening to his description of Mary Meyer, he describes a brilliant, idealistic lady. I get the sense that Jack, while well-educated, was not an intellectual giant. That’s OK, my point is that Mary’s idealism seems to have caught fire in Jack at one point.
It seems more likely that Mary would have had a better sense of how dangerous these people are than Jack. Dr. Janney’s description of Mary paints the picture of a lovely and talented woman. Having lived through that time I can attest that “hope” was a common commodity.
This leaves me wondering whether she was killed to send a message, or in retribution. The CIA of the period was infested with Eastern establishment types. Given her upbringing they may have seen her as a “turncoat” or at least representative of a thread they would have just as well seen eliminated.
It always amazes me that, as large as this country is, how members of the upper strata are constantly connected. I mean, logically I understand the concept of “connections”, but, whether it is national or international government or politics, its a theme that repeats.
It isn’t what you know, it’s who you know. It is relatively easy to have an impressive resume if you are from a wealthy family that can afford to ensure that happens. But, resume or not, it isn’t what you were taught that tells the tale, its what you do with that.
As Dr. Janney seems to suggest, those early Cold Warriors may have been idealistic in their own way. The “mistake’ is that they believed that their status and privilege made them the final arbiters of how the world should function. I see no difference from the attitudes that governed monarchies.
That was a very interesting interview. I’ll have to read his book.
On rereading parts of THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT the realization dawned that it was a hatchet job. It’s purpose was to diminish the Kennedy aura, and to assure the public that there was no conspiracy.
On the last page, 456, Hersh wrote: “Robert Kennedy did nothing to pursue the truth behind his brother’s death in 1964. He would have done nothing even if he had won the Democratic nomination in 1968 and the presidency.”
There is no possible way that Hersh could know that. Indeed, he knew the first statement wasn’t true, his having documented Robert’s pursuing the truth. I take back what I said about Hersh; even if he earlier wrote good stuff, he became a political whore.
Mark, that’s odd. The common belief among those who have done any research on the JFK assassination is that “Bobby knew”. There are thoughts that he was afraid to pursue it.
It has often been said that “the rich are not like you and me”. I think that’s very true, at least as it applies to the powerful. I doubt that anyone in that inner circle ever had any doubts. They KNEW it was arranged.
Perhaps Hersh reasoned “if they can take out the top dog, how hard would it be for me to get depressed?”. I’m certain that was what went through Bobby’s mind. As it later turned out, he was right.
While Jim Douglass’s book “JFK and the Unspeakable” is an excellent overview of the events surrounding the assassination, it only briefly covers one of the most significant operational details of this coup d’etat. Douglass does acknowledge that there were two “Oswalds” involved in creating the myth of the lone gunman. This is very significant.
In retrospect, as John Armstrong’s book “Harvey and Lee” makes clear, Oswald was being groomed as a patsy from early childhood. His identity was deliberately conflated by US intelligence with another Lee Harvey Oswald, who shadowed him from school to school and city to city as he grew up. While this was done ostensibly for the purpose of creating a perfect spy who was fluent in Russian, it also made him into the perfect patsy for use in a future assassination.
The question that remains unanswered is how the control hungry intelligence community could have known in the late 1940s that it might need to stage an assassination using a “lone gunman” who was very conveniently a Russian speaking communist. It is doubtful that JFK would have been perceived as a threat at this early date.
However there was a very prominent politician on the scene who might have scared the PTB into setting in motion such a diabolical scheme. His name was Henry Wallace, and he very nearly became the nation’s president after the reign of FDR. He was replaced with Truman in a mini coup during the democratic convention of 1944. Could the specter of a left wing Wallace presidency have so frightened the CIA that they set in motion a plan to eliminate some future and yet unknown leader should the need arise? Armstrong’s book gives credence to this view.
If this speculation is accurate it casts the murder of JFK in a new light. Kennedy simply crossed a line that triggered a prearranged plan held in abeyance for just such a contingency. Any leader attempting to do the things that he did would have met the same fate. His election to the presidency was the last uncontrolled election in America. Never again would the establishment allow such a populist to gain control of the nation. RFK and MLK were murdered before they even got there.
One has to wonder if there is such a plan in place today should the need arise to eliminate such a popular and uncontrollable politician. Plane crashes such as those which claimed the lives of Paul Wellstone and JFK Jr seem to be the new method of preference.
Lophatt, Hersh concedes that Bobbie thought there was a conspiracy, but denies that Bobby would ever do anything about it. This is very dubious; Bobbie was simply not that kind of person. He wanted to do something effective, that is why he was waiting until he was president. And that, most likely, was why he was killed.
Christo, there is no question but that there were two Oswalds, which would take a great deal of pre-planning. The interview above focuses some attention on what happened BEFORE the murder, which has not been studied as much as the witness murders after the assassination.
The implication is that even If Johnson headed the assassinations effort, there had to be a fairly large intelligence effort to manage the various strands of the plots. If that was the case then, before troops entered Vietnam en masse, it would explain how we could largely be ruled operatively by intelligence agencies now. And how they could get Hersh to prostitute his integrity with this book.
There appears to still be a lot to learn about these false flags. It might be useful to form a committee of specialists, like James and deHaven-Smith and the 9/11 truthers, as a shadow preparation for a government committee, which I don’t think likely to function without a political revolution.
Mark, yes, I agree. I believe that Bobby knew, but he also knew what he was up against. I felt profound sorrow for him. What a terrible weight that must have been.
I know it sounds trite, but there was a time when “hope” was palpable. Of course no politician is who they claim to be. That aside, I believe that JFK and Bobby were two that felt an obligation to their fellow man. It wasn’t all about them.
MPM seems another such person. I have never said that being an aristocrat makes one automatically suspect. I have had the pleasure to know a few who were warm, genuine, intelligent and generous. Living a privileged life can free one from the mundane pursuits most of us are forced to endure. I will say that they seem to be a dying breed, however.
For me Bobby’s death put the final nail in the coffin for “hope” when it comes to politics or government. It was as though they were saying “see, don’t get any ideas. We eliminated his brother and we took him out too”. It was a very sad time.
As Procul Harem said in a song “…so many moons and many Junes, since we set sail….”. Non-psychopaths don’t do well in that company. I’m afraid you’re right. Bobby gambled on the Presidency (and possible retribution), and lost. I admire his courage, but it was a rigged game.
In 1968, when Bobbie Kennedy was murdered, I was working in LA consulting and administrating poverty programs. Kennedy had previously came to one of our headstarts to publicize the program, and himself as well, as he was running for president. He was very young so he walked slow like an old man; he looked like a young man walking slow like an old man. I was told that I was on TV with him for five seconds, so I still have 14+ minutes left of my 15 minutes of fame.
One program was training Hispanics of east LA and African Americans of Watts to do human service work, and to be hired by the government agencies. They worked for over a year at derisory wages, and then the government wouldn’t give them the jobs they promised them. ( a major opposition to this program came from middle class Hispanics and Blacks.)
In any case someone gave a speech telling them that they were being sold out, and that you didn’t get nothing without fighting for it, and they had a large demonstration downtown in front of the administration building. They were all hired right there, off the street, including two dope addicts that we didn’t recommend for jobs.
The government made the outrageous claim that I was responsible for the demonstration (the protesters they hired were responsible) and fired me. During this time the coroner Dr Niguchi, was also being fired. He had ruled that Kennedy was killed by a shot in the back of the head, when Oswald was shooting from the front. Much later I was at a conference with a labor representative who was also shot at the time, and he said some of the shots came from behind Kennedy.
In any case Niguichi was grossly stigmatized in the media for being Japanese and carrying a knife around. (he was a coroner and carried a coroner’s knife.) The Japanese community got behind Niguichi and he was given his job back. He was defended by a lawyer who won Niguichi’s case so I approached him for mine. I remember he had an office in a tower right next to that of Stanley Kubrick, the director.
The point of this trip down Memory Lane? it is not that no good deed goes unpunished, although this would not necessarily be an unmerited conclusion. No, the point is: history doesn’t end. It didn’t occur to me at the time that I would be recounting part of this story nearly a half century later, or that it would be in any way relevant then. But you never know what the future will bring.
An isolated act at the time can gain coherence not necessarily or only in the recounting, but in the vagaries of history itself. There is a subterranean fire that builds in the people as the impoverishment and repression increase, that cannot be stamped out by any number of militarized police. If there is hope, as James says following Orwell, it is in the proles. And since they are smoldering with rage and contempt, a spark can start a prairie fire. Eventually these false flags will blowback against power, and the subhumans, as the Washington supported Nazis call them, will become fully human. And the revelation of these false flags will have played a role in this human redemption.
Well written,Mark…Thank you,sir.
Some interesting things in Janney’s book which did not come up in the interview are, first, that Mary Pinchot Meyer kept a diary, which disappeared. Her brother-in-law was actually Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Wash Post, and Janney puts forth evidence that Bradlee was in MPM’s studio the night of the murder and removed the diary. Bradlee also revealed knowledge of the assassination before it had been made public.
Other things I had never heard before reading Janney’s book were his information, through interviews of people who knew, about the CIA’s alteration of the Zapruder film. (Douglass revealed, in fact, that Abraham Zapruder was linked to the White Russian community in Dallas, which had taken Oswald under its wing.) Janney further established that, when Kennedy’s bronze casket was solemnly taken off Air Force One in D.C., before the eyes of the world, it was empty. His body had been spirited away in a body bag to the Naval hospital, where it was “reworked” to turn the exit wound into an entrance wound to make it appear JFK had been shot from behind, and above. I feel sure these things were in Janney’s book, although if they were in Douglass’s, forgive me! I read both within a pretty short span of time.
The “Mission Impossible” actor’s name was Peter Graves.
I hope, hope, hope that MPM’s diary surfaces one of these days, and feel sure Janney has not given up on finding it.
I wish he, or someone, would look into Dorothy Kilgallen’s death, by the way, another likely murder of a journalist. She had been interviewing Jack Ruby in his prison cell and was about to spill the beans when she suddenly died, too.
I have posted a response to the information in your Peter Janney interview. If it is a lost opportunity that you did not have the chance to ask Janney anything about his controversial uncle, the Time-Life, Inc. director and former chairman of General Dynamics who selected Roswell Gilpatric to negotiate the merger with Henry Crown’s family business, Material Service, Inc. Mary’s Mosaic is a distraction, especially with Janney’s assassin exposed as a UC Mgmt. Sciences PhD!
RayCrump Vs Mary Pinchot Meyer:1.There were other people on the towpath /2.Ray Crump wet lost jacket,zip undid,fish story with no fish gear-face/hand injury ?Case Witness :WLM:I was running East.(toward Keybridge?). Approached Foot Bridge,Saw Female crossing the Bridge,Headed West as I approached.She was Walk West toward Fletchers Landing.(She was alone .)I had to Stop Running,come complete Stop,let her cross over bridge.After She passed, I continued to run East,cross the bridge.(WLM1st encounter Mary)WLM:(saw Woman)Running East.I will Say She passed within 3or 4 feet of me.I was looking right at her.She was walk west on the bridge.(fletcher’s landing boathouse)She was alone.She head west crossing the bridge.I had to Stop and Let her cross over the bridge,& after she passed I continued to run East across the bridge.(approach foot bridge)toward Key Bridge.(so WLM & Mary entered towpath same time?) WLM:I saw young student estimate 20ish bermuda shorts all i remenber(october D.C 12,1964?)I passed a couple,walking together,twice I passed individual also running on towpath twice.(Couple)on the road leading down to the canal near the keybridge.(next time saw couple)approx halfway between Keybridge and Fletchers (entrance of Fletcher’s at Canal and Reservoir.) and this time i was running back from Fletchers(fletchers boathouse 4940 canal rd Nw D.C.) and they were walking west at the time.(Saw Mary?)2nd Saw lady 1220pm pass lady with black man behing he came close to WLM 200ft ?Before,both times was before couple(white couple)Furthermore.(footnote: DCPD encountered a couple ask them questions reply didn’t see or hear nothing & later let them go?10-12-1964)establish the relationships between the victim and any potential offenders.Means -Motive -Opportunity VS Benefit/Payoff/Gain =Revenge= EXhusb Cord:stop pay child support/alimony/took the boys from Mary/got his house back from mary?:In February 2001 Heymann asked Cord about Mary’s murder and he replied, “My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed. It was a bad time.” When asked who had murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer the retired Cord , reportedly “hissed” back, “The same sons of bitches that killed John F. Kennedy.( cord suggesting/hinting Mary /JFK ?)