[Culto]

Media-fakery on the towpath, part 6: A T-shirt.

The Mary Pinchot Meyer murder case was officially closed after Crump's acquittal in 1965. Quite an unsatisfactory ending of the official version of the events, for there were still lots of clues to find her alleged 'assassin' within the Official Story which weren't analyzed at all. The trial was held only after 8 months of the crime, so in the real world there would have been plenty of time to consider and investigate these issues as well:

- the absence of witnesses on the towpath and on the Canal road.

- the owner of the stalled grey Rambler:



In the real world it would have been extremely unlikely that the police weren't able to find any clue about its owner. By just tracing back the phone call made to the ESSO station at the phone company, it must have been a piece of cake to find him.

- Mitchell, Wiggins, Branch and Vivian should have been considered instantly as suspects of the crime instead of just witnesses.

- Crump should have been considered as a witness as well, instead of being the only suspect.

In the real world, the lawyer of the only suspect in a high profile murder case such like this would certainly have addressed and questioned the crappy level of the investigation performed as it is described in the official version of the accounts.

Dovey Roundtree didn't. Even worse than that, she seems to be an integral part of the crappy and surreal "official version" of the events herself by telling Nina Burleigh in 1996 that she was never able to find Vivian, while she even had talked with her on the phone!

Any evidence of fakery in Roundtree's role in the official story would be enough to instantly prove that the trial was staged and therefore the "Mary Meyer-assassination" itself was a staged media-event. And yes, there is such evidence.
It's even visual evidence. There are two official sources which blatantly contradict each other.

Just like in other Psy-Ops like 11/22 and 9/11, there is a certain 'code' which one is allowed to follow to 'decipher' the fakery, or rather: these traces lead you into the truth behind the Big Lie itself; they were built-in right from the start. In Dealey Plaza the 'code' was the fake bloodstains, on 9/11 it was the fake planes and in this case the 'code' was:

Crump's clothing.

Crump's clothes are crucial throughout the Official Story. By following the built-in clues referring to his clothes, one is 'led to' aka 'allowed to know' the truth behind the events on the towpath.

It starts with his shoes, which turned out to play an important role at the trial. Basically Crump got acquitted for his lenght and weight didn't match with the statements done by witnesses Mitchell and Wiggins. His shoes were quite relevant in that story.
Okay, so what kind of shoes did he wear that day? Black wingtip shoes, "sort of a dress shoe" (Roundtree, p. 210) with heels of about 2.5 inches. (Burleigh, p. 272) On the early morning of Monday, October 12 Ray Crump left his home for work. At the end of this article there is a description of his job:



He should have been working for a paving contractor at a hospital, he was a day laborer working in temporary construction work. (Burleigh p. 243). As he did not return home before meeting Vivian and going to the towpath that day, Crump's choice to wear his dress shoes for a paving constuction job is quite strange, to say the least... Or should this be interpreted as "surreal" too?

Anyway, after arriving at the towpath Crump is identfied by Lt. William Mitchell and Henry Wiggins mainly because of his clothing: black shoes, black trousers, white jacket and black cap. This is how Crump became suspect in the first place.
Crump's throwing away of his jacket and cap into the river while 'searching for Vivian' indicates that he had witnessed something that might well have harmed him. Crump must have noticed that someone had seen him, hence Crump tried to hide his identity. The actual proof that Crump was indeed innocent was also on his clothes: no traces of gunpowder, Mary's blood and fibers of her clothing were found on his clothes.

Crump's arrest.

Police officer John Warner noticed Ray Crump standing near the edge of the river within 500 ft. east of the crime scene. The arrest itself was "surreal" as well: although Crump was standing very near the murder scene, he had blood on his face and hands, he was soaking wet and his fly was open, officer Warner just walked toward him and asked him for his ID and what he was doing in the area....
This guy might have shot him right away if he still would have had his gun on him! Crump wasn't even patted down at first! Just like in police movies, Officer Warner should have aimed his gun at him at once, while shouting "freeze!", put him on the ground and pat him down instantly while calling for assistence.

Crump's arrest in the Official Story of the events looks scripted, so what about Crump's clothing during the arrest?

Like stated before, sourcing is all-important for analyzing psy-ops. The main, basic source for just about all the available data on the Mary Pinchot Meyer-case are the official trial transcripts of 1965, not online btw. During the trial this police officer who had arrested Crump, John Warner, did a testimony. (Burleigh, p. 334)
This is Warner's official testimony about Crump's clothing:

a small black man clad in white T-shirt and black pants.

Roundtree, obviously present at the trial, confirms Crump's clothing in her own book, page 213:

Ray had been wearing just his slacks and a white T-shirt.

And this is the only available photo of Crump's arrest, made by Arthur Ellis for the Washington Post:



Crump is wearing a sweater over a white T-shirt!

This is the only available photo of Crump at the police station:



Crump is wearing just a white T-shirt...

Dovey Roundtree had 8 months to figure out what exactly her client Ray Crump was wearing during his arrest.
She was aware of the Washington Post's coverage of the Crump-case. See Zalin Grant's article:

Only a day or two after Crump was arrested, the Washington Post had editorialized about the case in a strange and most unprofessional way. As the Post saw it, there was no question about it: Ray Crump was the killer.
Dovey called the Post and asked if they had information about Crump’s guilt that wasn’t available to her. The Post said no, they had nothing that wasn’t generally known to the police.

Roundtree mùst have seen the Washington Post-photo of Crump's arrest during her 8 months-investigation.
Crump apparently hadn't told her what exactly he was wearing, though that might have been crucial information
in this particular case. For, the only scientific proof of his innocence were the lack of gunpowder- and bloodtraces on his skin and clothes. Any contamination of these vital traces, let alone any doubt about their
authenticity could have been crucial for the jury's verdict. Roundtree knew this just like Nina Burleigh, who interviewed one of the detectives present at the police station when Crump was arrested. She asked Wallace about Crump's jacket, which was found in the Potomac river later that afternoon: (Burleigh, p. 334)

The police made a fatal mistake by trying the coat on Crump first. It fit perfectly. But trying it on the suspect had also contaminated the evidence.

Thus: the police, Nina Burleigh and Dovey Roundtree, all of them were perfectly aware of the importance of Crump's clothing in terms of possible contamination of available traces. Yet, nobody seemed to notice the blatant contradictions between John Warner's official statements and the photos?! Umm...surreal, again...

But there is more to say about Arthur Ellis' photo. This is from the 1976 Nobile/Rosenbaum-article:



Crump was supposedly handcuffed? On the Washington Post-photo he doesn't have any handcuffs on...

There are some more issues with this photo:

- Only Crump's left underarm is wet, while he supposedly was soaking wet from his jump into the river.

- Although it's physically possible that the car was parked in the direction on the photo, in the given situation it would have been extremely unlikely at the very moment of the arrest. See part 2: A Car

- It's impossible to determine the exact location of the photo. See part 1: A Photo

- And please note the left hand central on the photo, conveniently pointing at Crump, the suspect.

This was the conclusion of part 1:

the police activities on the scene would have been observed by the reporters/photographers present on the Canal Road.

The whole scene of finding Crump, patting him down, handcuffing him and putting him in the car supposedly took place right before the eyes of the reporters and press-photographers. And none of them noticed anything unusual happening on the towpath? Again: "surreal"...

CONCLUSION
There is only one logical way to explain the contradictions between the Arthur Ellis-photo and the official testimonies of the directly involved police officers during the trial: The photo of Crump's arrest on the towpath was staged.
No way this could ever be a genuine photo made of a genuine arrest of a genuine suspect.

So what about the "crime" itself? Why would the Washington Post publish a staged photo of the arrest of the suspect of Mary Meyer's assassination? Because there aren't any genuine photos available. Why would that be? Because the entire event on the towpath was simulated...

The Mary Pinchot Meyer-assassination was a staged media-event. My personal views are that the original concept of staging Jack's and Mary's assassination came from Jackie herself. With the dignity of the U.S. presidency in mind, she developed a script which would distract from her husband's private life, including his steady relationship with Mary Pinchot Meyer.

For 47 years they managed to protect this Big Lie by creating an immense disinformation-industry around the events in Dallas '63 and Georgetown '64. It worked out well; it was decided to apply the same basic structure for the mega psy-op 9/11 as well. However, there is only one word left to describe this "JFK-murder" psy-op by the Georgetown and Washington elite in the sixties:



Busted.