Many of this year’s commemorations highlight the curious fact that so much JFK “assassination art” focuses not on the presidential victim or even on the shooter(s), but on the drama’s leading ladies, Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe.
Source: Artists Address the Women at the Heart of JFK’s Assassination | The Creators Project
16 thoughts on “The women at the heart of the JFK assassination story”
And so the worm turns again, it would seem…. yikes !!
Amazing that Mary Meyer’s murderer has never been identified. I’ve been to Georgetown many times and I’m sure back then, it was quieter. So think of it – what are the odds that a woman walking the tow path would be gunned down like that by a random killer?
Ray Crump was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under a lesser standard of proof, say…. similar to the standard the Warren Commission was comfortable with,
it is quote possible Crump would have been determined to be the shooter. Crump’s murder trail attorney Dovey Roundtree had told four different versions of locating Crump’s
“alibi” girlfriend. Nina Burleigh says Roundtree informed her that she failed to locate “Vivian”. And here are other variants.:
But…but Zalin Grant quotge Attorney Roundtree saying Crump went to Vivian’s house, “that morning” so why would Roundtree need a private investigator to
locate Viv…..oh, nevermind!
At least we know now who did not do it.:
And CIA Counter intelligence head Angleton broke into her apartment or studio, caught by Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee and his wife, her sister, looking for her diary…
The Stork found Mary’s diary. MPM’s sister, Tony, saw it in his possession more than once. Of course, JJA told her he’d “take care of it.” James Jesus got a big kick out of reading the private musings of the dead, especially dead women. Of course, no one above the surface knows where Mary’s diary is now. The Morlocks have it in their clubhouse. Angleton probably sold it for a pretty penny.
With friends like Ben and Toni Bradlee, who can afford enemies.
I don’t get it, Roy. I’m not in this to be entertained. I go along, as in the examples I’ve posted, seeking accuracy, indisputable facts, if at all possible, as in the recent example of the two people Steven Jones’s sources connected with suspicions about the two, Miller and Roice, along with Ruth Paine in Nicaragua in the early 1990’s. I dismantled Peter Janney’s “missing” Crump murder trial prosecution witness imagined into the CIA assassin of Mary Meyer. Why are so many so invested in being spectators to mystery that does not have to, and should not remain mystery? Try this, one and done, unless you know otherwise and can support your claims? It doesn’t sell books and is an agreed account of two seemingly uninterested parties in a position to know.:
Or, is spinning our wheels for the rest of our lives, the better option? Sorry, you just happened to provide a clear example of the need for Jfkfacts.
Tom, it’s been awhile since I nearly memorized PJ’s Mary’s Mosaic, and vomited reading Nina Burleigh’s A Very Private Woman, a joke of a title since Mary shared her thoughts and opinions with everyone she could; that is, until the very end.
This LA Times article from 20 years ago is unadulterated Nina Burleigh crap. I can’t cite a source right now, but for one thing it is PREPOSTEROUS that MPM would request that that stewed cadaver James Jesus Angleton would take control of ANY of her personal effects, let alone her diary that she took great pains to hide. At the end of her life, MPM not only hated CIA, she loathed and despised The Stork probably more than any of them.
Two, it has been established by others than the Judas Ben Bradlee, that the Bradlees went to Mary’s house, and FOUND JJA had already BROKEN in, and was rummaging around in the dark with a flashlight.
Tom, I am so sorry that I was very sarcastic to you about a year ago over this same matter. It was not typical of me. I mean I AM a sarcastic twit, but never that bad. I don’t know what it is about MPM’s story that brings it out in me.
Let’s put our cards on the table. MY take on the basic facts of the October 1964 assassination:
–M was quite vocal about WCR as soon as it came out 9/64 and she was making a big stink about it.
–She was stalked gangster/Cia style for about 2 weeks.
–There were spotter/lookouts in the canal park where she took her daily run; it was a big operation. I can see it. It was phony as can be, from the poor mechanic who was called (to be a distant witness, but not a really good witness) TO the Mafia/CIA-style hired killers, one of whom put a bullet through her heart and one in her head.
–It was anything but a Random Act of Violence.
In simple language, what’s your take on it?
I am at a disadvantage in that I require proof and I see none for the claims you’ve made here. Mary’s sister Toni gave conflicting accounts of the diary,
and I presented a published objection to Ben Bradlee’s account from Mary’s friend and Ann Truitt joined by Angleton’s wife. I cannot embrace accounts of
proven liars without supporting proof of their claims. Mr. Janney wrote a book in which he claimed CIA assassin and Crump murder trial prosecution witness
William L. Mitchell was missing since his testimony. Janney resented the details I found and presented, accused me of attacking him, and launched a publicity
stunt lawsuit against Mitchell for wrongful death, after I point out to him that Mitchell was neither missing nor sinister. Janney’s lawyer, Dr. William Pepper,
filed a motion in DC Federal Court just before Janney spoke at Santa Barbara in Nov., 2013. The court record is proof that four days before Janney told his
audience the lawsuit against Mitchell was active, Dr. Pepper’s motion asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit against Mitchell WITH prejudice. I know Janney’s
source’s (the late Leo Damore) researcher, Mark O’Blazney, and he knows much more than you, I, or Janney, and Mark agrees that Damore was delusional towards
the end of his life. I showed you that Janney’s other source, Dovey Roundtree contradicted herself about finding, or not finding Curmp’s alibi girlfriend, aka
“Vivian”. I presented a link showing Janney refusing to consider that Mitchell was not a CIA assassin until late summer 2014, two full years after he learned
of my August, 2012 discovery of what happened to Mitchell.
Type in Janney’s first and last name and read for yourself. BTW, Janney tried to achieve standing and overcome the statute of limitations on civil suits by
claiming Mary Meyer was his “surrogate mother”.
Janney’s motion for dismissal was granted on 2 Dec, 2013 by Judge Anthony C. Epstein. :
Court Cases Online – D.C. Courts
Image of case history and November plaintiff dismissal motion filing, granted by court on 03 Dec., 2013:
I have evidence supporting what did not happen, Roy, as far as the Diary, and as far as Janney’s reliability.
What do you have, as far as proof? Strong opinions and unsupported third hand suspicions fueling theory is not proof and does not
permit you to make the claims I am responding to, without negatively impacting your credibility, so why do it? What influences got you
to the point you are making the claims about the Meyer murder case, in your comment? I have no problem learning new things about the case,
things supported by evidence. Where is any evidence Mary felt so strongly about details and conclusions in the WCR, report for example,
as it was released just two weeks before her murder?
I’ve never read this account before.
I’m dying to know — has Peter Janney talked with “William Mitchell”? The one who lives in northern California. I don’t want to pick old scabs, really. (About a year ago, I was very sarcastic with you about Mary’s Mosaic.)
Thank you for clarifying, for PJ and all of us, that WM was not the actual assassin. Here’s asking a lot: Do you think this WM was involved in any way in Mary Meyer’s assassination? Again, I hope it’s not a sore point.
I have no reason to believe William Mitchell had any role in the murder of Mary Meyer other than his role as
prosecution witness. Janney bought into and passed along the late Leo Damore’s claims. Hank Albarelli is sticking
to his unidentified source’s related claims.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016&page=2#entry274740
After you read Albarelli’s reply to me, at the preceding link, consider Albarelli had credited my research in his book.:
(The lawyer Albarelli writes of in connection with Thomas E. Davis had a son who graduated from Yale
and was in Firesign Theater in the 60’s.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18890 )
Janney provided only a late August 2012 audio clip he claimed was of knocking on Mitchell’s door prompted by
my research details indicating who and where Mitchell was. Mitchell is heard telling Janney firmly he has no
interest in conversing with him or in reading his book. In his paperback with added sequel on his doings after
Mitchell was no longer missing, Janney claimed he or his team had contact of some sort with Mitchell’s brother.
Again, if Janney had further contact with Mitchell, I anticipate he would be anxious to put it out ASAP, unless
it tended to make Janney’s suspicions about Mitchell groundless. Consider that you’ve learned of the disposition
of Janney’s and Dr. William Pepper’s lawsuit, announced enthusiastically by both men at its start, from me. Janney,
to my knowledge, has not commented about its dismissal, just over two years ago.
Tom, I’m dying to know — is there a conclusion with Peter Janney deposing “William Mitchell”? Thank you, and I’m sure PJ thanks you, for clarifying that WM was NOT the actual assassin. I can’t remember where I saw (not PJ i’m pretty sure) that it was a couple of those darn ex-Cubans again. Was this “WM” involved in any way? I can’t track it down. Is Janney waiting to put the final upshot in a new edition? It’s been a long time, over two years, since he first made contact with the WM in northern California. Which I think was due to your help.
If there is a resolution to this part of the Mary Pinchot Meyer saga, will you post a link? Mucho gracias. I don’t know why this particular part of the coup bothers me the most. Maybe it’s simply Mary’s dogged bravery. Though it bordered on Kennedyesque rashness, foolhardiness.
If there was anything supporting Janney’s claims, do you agree that if they resulted from deposing Mitchell as Janney claimed was done by January, 2014,
they would have been announced by Janney, or at least leaked? Consider also that I have just shared the lawsuit case record with you. In what sort of civil
suit does one retain the privilege or authority to depose a defendent a month or more after the court record of the related lawsuit had been closed, with prejudice,
upon the court granting the motiong for dismissal filed by the plaintiff?
Read it again, Roy.: http://tomscully.com/Barb/JanneyMitchellSuit.jpg or search here: https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf , Peter Janney .
If your listen to the podcast of November, 2012, Roy, you’ll find that Janney was not only not appreciative of receiving more accurate
information about William L. Mitchell, he accused me of attacking him and thinking he is a “lousy” researcher. He and Fetzer discuss
their suspicion of my discovery that Mitchell earned an MS at Harvard in 1963, and in the latest addition of the book, Janney
claims he accessed a Harvard resource and HE discovered the middle name. And here is Doug Horne showing his irritation with my
discovery of Mitchell’s background details, in Aug., 2012.:
Your tore down Nina Burleigh and her book. What actually justified that?
That’s right, her murderer hasn’t yet been identified, but two parts of the murder story bring us back to 11-22-63 in Dallas. An innocent black man was framed for the murder(though it is true of course that Oswald was white), and also it was said, I believe in Roger Stone’s recent book on the assassination, that individuals believe the same people involved in JFK’s murder were involved in that of Meyer.
Rose Cheramie deserves a mention as well. Her story is alarming and seems to have independent corroboration.
Surprising they mention nothing of Mary Meyer considering she was an artist, if they want to get to the heart of the matter.