Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

The Spinning of the Mary Pinchot Meyer murder – Revisited

By Ralph Cinque, maker of DOVEY’S PROMISE

 

This is in response to the editorial in the DAILY BEAST by author Nina Burleigh, whose book A VERY PRIVATE WOMAN is considered required reading about the case. The standard spin, of both government and media, has been that, despite being acquitted, Raymond Crump did murder Mary Pinchot Meyer. And it is also Nina’s spin. Based on what? Based on nothing derived from the case, as I will explain. But, there is the fact that Crump went on to have a relentless life of crime after his acquittal. I’ll admit that that is daunting, but it is not directly relevant to what happened in 1964. Prior to his arrest for killing Mary, Raymond had a minor criminal record, but it was for shoplifting, petty larceny, and public intoxication, but no violent crimes.  

The problem is we don’t have any formal records about this. In her DB article, Nina claimed that Crump went to prison for multiple arsons and also for the rape of a 13 year old girl.  I can’t find any proof of that. I’m not claiming to know that it’s a lie, but I need proof of it. Nina Burleigh saying it doesn’t suffice.  And she does have falsehoods in her article. She said it was an all-black jury at the Towpath Trial. It was not. It was 7 blacks and 5 whites. Now, in DOVEY’S PROMISE, we made it 6 whites and 6 blacks, and that was for dramatic effect.

Nina said that Cord Meyer was #3 at the CIA. That is not true. He was a high-level operative but certainly not #3.

Nina questioned whether Dovey Roundtree really believed in Crump’s innocence. Would she have offered to defend him for $1 if she wasn’t sure?  Would she have visited him every day in jail, for months on end, if she didn’t believe in his innocence?

I don’t doubt that Raymond Crump had a criminal life after his acquittal, but let’s just say that the specifics of it are unverified.

And again, it has no direct bearing on what happened in 1964. But now, I will lay out why it is inconceivable that Raymond Crump killed Mary Meyer.

Two possible motives were proffered, robbery and rape, but neither works.

Robbery doesn’t work because the killer started by attacking Mary by hand. An armed robber would surely use his gun to solicit the cooperation of the victim. Nobody wants to die over pocket money. And we’re not talking about much. Mary had $10 on her and no jewelry. She was on a fitness walk, so why would she be plied with cash? Why would Raymond Crump or anyone else expect her to be?  A robber wants to get money and valuables, but he doesn’t want to reach into his victim’s pockets to get it. So, he’s going to use his gun to solicit theircooperation. Therefore, the actions of the killer prove that robbery was not his motive.   

What about rape? It was a popular walking trail, and other walkers could have come by at any time. There was no expectation of privacy and seclusion. It was also just 128 feet from busy Canal Rd in Georgetown, with a wide-open view. A rape needs time, privacy, and no chance of interruption, which didn’t exist. But, it also requires a “disparity of force” where the rapist is much stronger than the victim.  Raymond was small. It is controversial because his driver’s license said 5’3 ½ “ and 130 pounds. The DC Police said he was 5’5 ½”  and 145 pounds. So, did they measure him in his 2 inch platform shoes?  At the trial, the prosecutor, Alfred Hantman, presumed that they removed his shoes, but we don’t know if that’s true.  But, even if Ray Crump was 5’5  ½ “ in his stocking feet, he was still shorter than Mary.

Think about what rape entails. The rapist has to restrain and control the victim. He also has to undo the victim’s clothes, in this case, get her pants down. He also has to undo his pants, get his penis out, and even though he is fighting with her, he’s got to get erect, and then as they struggle, and he is pinning her down, he has to penetrate her. I apologize for that graphic description, but the point is that it requires an overwhelming amount of dominance, force, and physical superiority, and Raymond Crump didn’t have that over Mary Meyer.

In fact, it never came close to that, as there is no evidence the killer ever went for Mary’s clothes.  So the rape claim was entirely speculative, based on nothing concrete.

But, the irony is that Crump told Dovey that he went there to have a consensual sexual rendezvous with a black woman named Vivien. And Dovey did talk to her on the phone. In DOVEY’S PROMISE, we made it that Dovey met Vivien in person at a park, and again, it was just for dramatic effect. And, I would like to think that Nina Burleigh respects Dovey Roundtree enough to know that she wouldn’t make up such a story. So, Vivien confirmed what Raymond said, but she refused to testify in court because she feared her husband would kill her. However, she did provide an affidavit about it. THERE IS AN AFFADAVIT ABOUT IT, FOR GOODNESS SAKE! We did not include it in the movie because it wasn’t introduced at the trial. The jury never found out about it. However, you can be certain that the prosecution found out about it. And they could have gone to Vivien and questioned her themselves. But, they didn’t.

So, neither robbery nor rape work as motives for Raymond Crump to attack Mary.  Is there anything left? No. Not for him.

But, there is another compelling reason why Crump could not have done it:  Between shots, the killer dragged Mary’s body 24 feet, and there is no plausible reason why Raymond Crump would have done that. If he was going to shoot her a second time, he would have done it wherever she collapsed, and then fled.  There was no reason for him to drag her. However, a CIA assassin, concerned about her visibility to a witness on the other side of the canal, might have dragged her to position her optimally for that. It makes sense for him but not for Raymond Crump.

And there’s more. The presumption was that even though there was no evidence that Raymond ever owned or obtained a gun, that somehow, he got one. But if so, what put him at the Towpath that day armed with a gun? You can’t claim that he woke up that morning with the thought, “I’m going to the Towpath because there might be an attractive woman on it that I might want to rape.” Nobody would think that. So, why did he go to the Towpath armed? Was his intention to rob someone? It doesn't seem like very rich pickings. But if so, why didn’t he use his gun to rob her?  If he brought the gun to rob someone, why attack the victim by hand?

So, you see, nothing works when you try to land on Raymond Crump’s guilt. You can’t get to it. It wasn’t plausible in 1965, and it isn't plausible today. In fact, it is SO implausible, that anyone, whether Lance Morrow or Nina Burleigh or anyone else, who maintains that Crump was guilty is either being incredibly stupid, OR, they are an accessory-after-the-fact in the CIA murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, if only in effect, if not intent.   

I’m hoping that this article stirs up thought and debate about this very important case, and I’m very willing to debate Nina Burleigh, if she is.