5 comments about Rush to Judgment.

1. The facts were obvious, the absurdity of the Warren Report were flaglanty flaunted, yet many people still never got the truth of JFK's murder. Mark Lane does not offer any final conclusions. He only offers more than enough evidence for two claims; 1.) that if Oswald killed JFK, he couldn't have done so alone, and 2.) the Warren Commission was a scam, dedicated to finding only Oswald's guilt, more concerned with "healing an ailing nation" than with presenting the facts.

   As a lawyer, Lane is well-versed in the procedures of court. He presents Oswald's case and the Commission's case with more evidence than you can shake a stick at. It would be difficult to fault Lane for telling it like it is, and it would be even harder to refute his claims. Lane was the man who busted the conspiracy wide open, and while making no deffinite judgments on exactly who perpetrated the conspiracy, he does make a solid case that there was one.

   LAne was personally involved with the case, and this works to his advantage in that he had access to a lot of facts. Unfortunately, he has also suffered the attacks of the media, and thus at times becomes a tad defensive. However, this bias is hardly noticeable and in no way detracts from the evidence.

   So I guess Oswald was innocent and the Warren Commission either lied or didn't look hard enough. Oh, and if you're going to read this be sure to check out other books on the Kennedy assassination. Lane's a good start, though.




2. I first heard of Mark Lane (ML) in 1961 when he revealed that the Republican Speaker of the NY Assembly was part owner of a firm that could get the contract to build "fallout shelters" in NY state. The bill was defeated, and Mark Lane was later dropped from his Democratic Party office. When ML read the news report of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt, he wrote an article that noted the contradictions. ML was then asked to be Oswald's lawyer before the Warren Commission. ML continued his investigation into the Warren Report; this book is his critique. ML gave lectures on his findings. David S Lifton was in the audience one day. DSL began to investigate the Warren Report and other articles. He then wrote "Best Evidence", the first book to point to "alterations of the wounds" to cover up the shootings from the front.
   
   The Introduction by Hugh Trevor-Roper says the Warren Commission's function was to pass judgment on the facts given to it. They depended on the FBI, the Secret Service, and the police; did the latter reach a conclusion that was seconded by the Warren Commission? [The book "Act of Treason" by Mark North presents a final judgment and resolution of the JFK Assassination.] Why didn't the Warren Commission have a Devil's Advocate to represent the interests of the accused? The assumption that Oswald acted alone was take for granted: the fix was in. The Warren Report must be judged by the validity of its arguments. Many have found defects in it. HTR says "a pattern was made to emerge out of the evidence .. and seemed to subordinate the evidence to it" (p.10). One of the most important questions is: how did Patrolman Tippit know to stop Oswald? Evidence which seems solid at first fades away like a mirage when it is investigated (p.11). HTR says the Warren Report is NOT a faithful summary of the evidence. There is also evidence that was not presented to the Commission, but should not be rejected out of hand. The Warren Report has a whole series of conclusions based on carefully selected evidence, and ignored evidence that did not support their conclusion. One Commission lawyer said that no court could legally have found Oswald guilty. [Did the quick killing of Oswald point to a wider conspiracy?] The experienced doctors at Parkland Hospital said the wounds came from the front, and so did most of the onlookers there. This circumstantial evidence is more reliable than a "magic bullet" or other planted evidence.
   
   If there is a lack of confidence in the evidence, and the Commission's handling of it, then was the Commission deceived or were they dishonest? Some might claim that the Commission of public figures and professional lawyers could not conspire to cover up a crime. [But isn't all that part of their daily life? See Watergate.] HTR says it could arise from prejudging a case before all the evidence has been seen. This is a very common psychological fact. HTR says the quantity of evidence presented in such a short period of time prevented any objective examination. The Commission accepted the foregone conclusion before they were given the evidence. Page 18 lists many unanswered questions. After forty years only one thing is certain. The conspiracy that killed JFK got away with it.
   
   This 1966 book lacks the photographs that became available many years later. This pioneering book is still a classic critique after forty years. Mark Lane was hired by Lee Harvey Oswald's mother to defend LHO before the Warren Commission. These are ML's comments on the Warren Report.
   
   Chapter 1 tells of the suspicious activity that occurred in the parking lot overlooking Elm St. Chapter 2 asks where the shots came from. 58 of the 90 witnesses questioned said the shots came from the grassy knoll. The actions at the time speak louder than anything said in the following weeks. Chapter 3 says JFK was hit first by a bullet in the throat, an entry wound; JFK had a massive wound in the rear portion of his skull. "Skull matter" was found on the south side of Elm Street; this is consistent with a bullet fired from the north. The police officers to the left of the limousine were spattered, consistent with a bullet fired from the right front. The Zapruder film shows Governor Connally shot from the back about 1.30 seconds after JFK's first wound. This suggests a second shooter.
   
   Chapter 4 is on "The Magic Bullet" which allegedly hit JFK, then struck Governor Connally in his rib and wrist, yet remained in pristine condition. Chapter 5 wonders why a description of Oswald was broadcast at 12:45 pm when he wasn't charged with shooting JFK until the next morning. Oswald wasn't the only absent employee. Chapter 6 tells of the testimony from the 3 men on the fifth floor, and how it was changed for the Commission. Chapter 7 notes the testimony of the other witnesses: the shots sounded like they came from west of the School Book Depositary. None of these witnesses were called before the Commission! Chapter 8 discusses the 7.65 mm Mauser discovered on the sixth floor at 1:22 pm. The next day the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano was substituted for it! Chapter 9 discusses the tests of the alleged assassin's weapon. None of the experts who fired the weapon could hit the head or neck of the target.
   
   Chapter 10 tells of the fictitious name "A J Hidell" used by Oswald. "Hidell" was the nickname of a Marine who served with Oswald and lived in New Orleans. Who else was entitled to receive mail at that post office box? Chapter 11 shows how the Commission created a story against the eyewitness testimony. Chapter 12 tells how a paraffin test cleared Oswald from firing a rifle that day! The freshly painted boards would give a positive response from both hands. Chapter 13 notes the 43 minutes from leaving the Depository to the shooting of Officer Tippit. No one saw Oswald leave the building. ML analyzes the other problems with the Commission's story. There are discrepancies between the different eyewitnesses stories.
   
   Chapter 14 discusses the eyewitnesses to the shooting of Officer Tippit. One testimony "was inconsistent with the known facts or the Commission's conclusions or both". Chapter 15 says the two other witnesses who saw the killing who saw the killing did not identify Oswald. One who saw two men was warned not to talk - or she might be killed. The four bullets found in Tippet's body could not be matched to Oswald's revolver. There was a problem identifying the four shells. The found jacket had a laundry tag but could not be traced! Chapter 16 tells of the murder of Oswald while in police custody. There were warnings about Oswald's safety, and requests to move Oswald in secret on Saturday, but the Dallas PD held to the announce schedule.
   
   The remaining chapters deal with Jack Ruby, the Oswalds, and the Commission. Later books had more of the facts gained from the Congressional Investigation. This remains one of the first books to critique the Warren Report.
   
   In 1974 George O'Toole published "The Assassination Tapes" which provided objective evidence that LH Oswald was not guilty. Soon Congress reopened the Investigation and came up with a rebuttal of the Warren Commission. Mark North's book "Act of Treason" is one of the best and last explanations of the conspiracy to kill JFK. David Wrone's "The Zapruder Film" explains why LHO was in the front of the building when the shots were fired; movies showed no one at the 6th floor SE window. Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of killing JFK, he wasn't even indicted. Claims of his guilt are another Media Hoax put forward to obscure the fact that the powerful conspirators got away with it.



3. For readers who are not familiar at all with the 40 years of the JFK assassination debate, Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" is probably, in my view, the second book to read. The first would be the Warren Commission Report. As this is an 888-page tome, designed to appear to be "thorough" or "exhaustive" in its research, I would suggest, if the reader has acquired the technique of skimming, to quickly go through this book to locate its major ideas. You will then find out how good a job you've done by carefully reading RTJ. Then go back to the WCR, keeping the objections and questions of Mark Lane in mind. After a careful reading of the WCR, the reader will then be in a position to understand, unlike the reader from Maryland, why some people have a problem with the WCR.
   By all means read Posner's "Case Closed". It's probably the best apology for the WCR on the market. But be sure to find the Harrison Livingstone book (can't remember the title) which devotes a whole chapter to a discussion of Posner's book, and follow that with Harold Weisberg's "Case Open", which devotes the whole book to debunking Posner. But there are many serious researchers who have problems with Posner.
   There are at least three 1960's books, all eminently readable, whose reason for being is simply to point out to the person with an open mind and average intelligence that the WCR, as it stands, can't possibly be the truth behind the Kennedy assassination. To attack them for being something other than they were meant to be strikes me as highly irrational. As Mark Lane points out, the WCR is really a brief for the prosecution. If Mark Lane had been allowed to be Lee Harvey Oswald's lawyer, there would have been no need for his book.
   For those who can stomach the truth, you might also want to read Sylvia Meagher's "Accessories After the Fact" and Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash" series.
   If you are like the reader from Maryland, stick with your Posner.



4. ...as with Plausible Denial, doesn't hold up as well with time; hasn't aged well. Funny enough, of his three JFK books, A Citizen's Dissent, something of an after thought, holds up the best of the three. That said, Lane was and is a pioneer. Still, the greatest thing he ever accomplished was the Rush To Judgment FILM--get that!
   [...]



5. New York lawyer, Mark Lane, wrote this book as a defense brief, of sorts, for Lee Harvey Oswald. His book, "Rush to Judgment", a classic in the JFK assassination investigation, shows how Americans were lulled by the Warren Commission into believing in the "Lone Nut" theory. Lane did what the Commission didn't: that is, to take seriously those people who went against the Commission's thesis statement.
   
   Lane painstakingly re-interviewed those witnesses, and interviewed other witnesses who were not called to testify before the Commission. On this basis, Lane leads us, with great authority, to his conclusion that the Warren Report is, at best, a seriously flawed document, and that there is a great deal of evidence to prove that more than one shooter participated in the murder John F. Kennedy. It is a disturbing conclusion that still reverberates today.
   
   And, as other reviewers have advised, it is a good idea to pick up Lane's video documentary of the same title.

5 comments about The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy: Stunning Evidence in the Assassination of the President.

1. As Mr. Livingstone has stated elsewhere, the entire establishment is a conspiracy. Well put!
   
   This whole JFK case has been subverted (or "faked" if you will) to cover up the involvement of those reaching into the very top of the US government.
   
   It's very important to remember nearly 50 years later that ANYTHING less would have been "Old News" by now, pronto.
   
   As Jim Garrison once said, it's not a question of whether Oswald's (US intelligence and/or military) handlers were or were not responsible for the assassination -- they WERE responsible.
   
   But you won't hear about any of this from the Executive Branch, the Congress or the Mainstream Media because this story still has the potential to undermine the whole US political system, one that serves these folks quite nicely just like it is.



2. He's on the right track here.He didn't write about Nixon pardoning Jack Ruebenstein ,from testifying to the HUAC ,in 1947.These men were socially and ideologically ,polar opposites.Yet,they both had a common link,the freemasons.Nixon was more than likey a big-wig in the masonic Scottish Rites and Jack Ruby a big price in the masonic jewish B'nai B'rth. How could a strip-tease nightclub owner escape the Cold War inquisition ,if he provided politicians with escourt girls? Well,very easily. Nixon may have cut a deal with Jack Ruby.If Ruby shot Oswald,Nixon would pardon him ,once he reclaimed the White-House throne,in 1964.Nixon knew if Ruby tried to explain publically the conspiracy-plot,the butterfly nets would swoop him up.So,Ruby followed along. In 1959,Nixon was the heir-apparent.Yet,America wanted something fresh and glamorous,not clammy and shifty.Nixon's quest to break the law ,in order to maintain his control over American politics,is well-known with the Watergate scandal. So, anyone who thinks that L.B.Johnson was the main-schemer in the asssassination plot,take a look at the far-right wing side. Good book !



3. Although I waited anxiously for this book, I must admit that as one who read Livingstone's other JFK assassination books, overall I was a bit disappointed in this production. Much of it is a rehash of his other books and borrows the new big picture framework from others, like Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Assassination of JFK. [Still, along with Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment, is one of the best books on the JFK assassination.]
   
   On the positive side, I was pleasantly surprised and happy to see that the author finally got religion and joined the ranks of those JFK researchers who see the importance and value of focusing more on the big picture, than groveling continuously in the dirty details without ever coming up for air. In this regard, Livingstone's previous work on the medical evidence is first-rate and seeing most of it repeated here did the book no harm.
   
   Also, his investigative reporting on the pre-assassination party held at Texas oil magnate Clint Murchinson's home on the eve of the assassination is also first rate -- as was the way he connected the dots between the players in attendance there. Previously, the idea that such a party actually took place, remained in the realm of hear-say.
   
   Unfortunately for me this was the high point of the book. It was all downhill from there.
   
   The rest, including the much-touted "new revelations on the J.D. Tippit murder," left me cold. Facts, fiction, hearsay, rumors, "factions" and "factoids," seemed to have been all been given equal weight. The author provided no context, guidance, or analysis to wade through and out of this quagmire of "new information." As a result, one would be insane to try to draw any conclusions based on what amounts to random facts and "near facts" tossed at the reader, with the hope that something would stick. So far, for me none has.
   
   This is especially unfortunate for a researcher of Livingstone's caliber, as now he will surely be cast down into purgatory with another run-of-the-mill researchers as just another "assassination conspiracy kook." This is especially unfortunate for this author, since his previous work has been of such high standards and generally held in high regard.
   
   Despite this, I gave the book three stars.



4. While some good facts are in the book, I think it could have been better organized. The author goes on and on about wounds whose locations were changed so the "official version" of the assassination made sense to the American people. After awhile, there is too much repeating of the same thing. He covers the wounds in so many different sections, that after awhile he is really not stating anything new. Plus he throws in so many names of people at times that it is hard to figure out who is who and how they fit in. I've read better books regarding the assassination.



5. Harry has always been a true believer. His chapter updating the latest on the autopsy is reason enough to get this book. The newest information will
   spin the heads around of the Posnerites. This work is not for the novice, but it will more than sustain the experienced JFK reader.

No comments about The Life, Crime and Capture of John Wilkes Booth.

No comments about Code Name "Zorro": The Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.

No comments about The Aldo Moro Murder Case.

No comments about The Assassination Attempt On Franco From The Air: 1948 (Anarchist Library #8).

1 comments about Portrait of a Racist: The Man Who Killed Medgar Evers?.

1. Reed Massengill tells the story of Byron De La Beckwith from an intimate look that few authors would be able to provide. Because of a familial relationship, Massengill was able to put together the important history of this man who will be remembered for what he did. It is an important read for any student of modern American history.

5 comments about Oswald and the CIA.

1. This is an important book in the Kennedy assassination genre. It contains the text of CIA documents not previouslypublished, attempting to establish a CIA connection withLee Harvey Oswald and subsequent efforts on the part of the CIA to conceal this connection through tampering with itsOswald files. The book is flawed by poor editing, andfrom time to time the author makes great leaps in his logic,but for all that, it is well worth the time spent reading.The book breaks off after Oswald's death. One can onlyhope that Mr. Newman writes another volume addressing post-assassination events, including the controversy surroundingthe bona fides of KGB defector Yuriy Nosenko and his claimto have been the KGB officer supervising the Oswald file inRussia



2. As a intern for Dr. Newman on this particular book, I spent countless hours searching for documents in the National Archives - I know first hand the length he went to provide accurate details. Dr. Newman recounts the interesting story of a dark point in our nation's history. He is very careful not to speculate on the assassination of Kennedy - he deals only with the facts before him - CIA and FBI documents that display what they knew about Oswald. He leaves the rest to the 'assassination buffs'



3. While Dr. John Newman is to be commended for the SUBSTANCE of this book, he is no writer---this is a real challenging book to get through, rivaling some of Harold Weisberg's books. For the RESEARCHER out there, highly recommended, so much so that anything less than 5 stars is heresy. For those who want a good "read", avoid like the plague! I know this seems like a contradiction, but it isn't (!)
   vince Palamara



4. I purchased Newman's book upon its publication in 1995 and over the years have re-read it at least 5 times and re-read passages even more often. Newman makes it very clear that his research wasn't aimed at the Kennedy assassination per se, but to reveal from the released archives of some of our clandistine agencies, that Lee Harvey or men named Lee Harvey Oswald were of great interest to the CIA, et al, long before our President was murdered. His research lets the reader draw conclusions, albeit very obvious conclusions. A hard read....but a great read.



5. This is one of the most exhaustive collections of information and data regarding the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey. I do agree with one of the other reviewers - this is not light reading. It's pretty dry - just the facts, no "window dressing".
   
   We always hear about the conspiracy theories, and speculation that the CIA played a role in the JFK assassination - this book sets out to provide convincing data. So if you're looking for an adventure novel or light reading, look elsewhere. But, if you're looking for an almost encylopedic source to quote when discussing such things, this is definitely the book.

5 comments about Killing the Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case.

1. It appears that HEL is shooting from the hip in his final book. The summation of facts in the first half of the book is compelling and somewhat satisfying, but from here comes the kind of stuff that the Gerald Posners of the world use to create the impression that researchers are paranoid and inaccurate. How can someone with a clear concsience say that all the people who shot photos and film in the Plaza were placed there by the conspirators? That researchers like Weisberg are on a disinformation campaign? There's no disagreement that the Groden questions raise doubts as to his credibility; the others sound a lot like elevator excuses. I read this book at the library, and a friend of mine moved recently and left a copy of this book for anyone to take with them.

   No one took it.

   After a thorough examination, I can see why.




2. I found this at a used bookstore. Was happy not to have my money go to the author. His arguments, like all the conspiracy theorists, are based on innuendo or explainable "discrepancies" in the evidence, which is presented in a very selective manner. HEL ignores the truly compelling evidence that shows that three shots and three shots only were fired at JFK's car. He counts up to 6 shots. Where are the bullets? The shells? The shooters? Several witnesses saw a rifleman in the Book Depository window. No one reported seeing any other shooters, even though potential witnesses were everywhere. Plus - 88% of the 178 witnesses said they were certain they heard three shots. HEL doesn't bother to mention this



3. First off, Richard Mark's review is baseless, the man endorses Gerald's Posners CASE CLOSED, which tells where he's coming from. Anyone who buys the single bullet theory is living in fantasy land. Ask anyone who hunts and they'll tell you it's impossible. About this book, it's packed with information about the assassination but the author writes with the assumption that the reader already has background knowledge of the assassination. Worth reading but not as a first book on the assassination.



4. While Mr. Livingstone probably has a lot to be angry about, his continual complaining and berating other "assasination researchers" accomplishes nothing more than listening to Hannity & Limbaugh complain and berate "liberals" (although at least some of Livingstone's complaints are grounded in real life). His earlier works provide a far superior summary of almost every theory out there.



5. While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects (I am mentioned on several pages, as well), ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination. Still, worth your time. That being said, Livingstone's crowning achievements are his "High Treason 2" and "The Radical Right.."
   
   Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
   Pittsburgh, PA
   
   BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
   BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)

2 comments about Act of Treason: The Role of J. Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy.

1. This book is one of the most important books that I have read on the JFK assassination - and I have read over a dozen since 1964. It is the "final chapter" as it provides the "big picture" answer.

   It uses the information that came out since the 1970s. The Congressional Investigation in 1977 resulted in a number of books afterwards.

   If you read Curt Gentry's "J. Edgar Hoover, The Man and the Myth" you would know that Hoover had been filing false expense reports for decades, and built up a small fortune. (He stayed at hotels and ate at restaurants for free, then collected expenses as if he had paid.) If he ever left office, he would have been convicted for fraud, and died in jail. He had no other option but to die in office, since he could not (or would not) get a "get out of jail free" card. (The Watergate Burglary came apart when one of the burglars did not get this, as promised.)

   You should know that this GOOJF card is not just an invented scene in the movie "Clear and Present Danger". Back in the 1940s the four-star General who headed the CIA went to President Truman with a complaint about an assignment: it clearly crossed the line into a felony. But Harry just wrote out a signed but undated full Presidential Pardon! Read the biography of Allen Dulles, "Gentleman Spy" for more details.

   And LBJ's crony was implicated in various frauds, some of which were said to be in complicity with organized crime. LBJ was likely to be dumped as vice-president, and would also face prosecution, disgrace, and jail.

   Mark North has collected a number of letters that passed between LBJ and JEH. Surely no one would expect either of them to put their plans in writing?




2. Mark North's "Act Of Treason" is a great, albeit dry, book on Hoover (and JFK/ RFK), making great use of contemporary news accounts and so forth. This is a nice companion volume to R. Andrew Kiel's outstanding book on Hoover, along with Anthony Summer's masterpiece "Official and Confidential." Get this!
   P.S. Who he thinks may be J. Edgar Hoover in his photo section is actually Secret Service agent Stewart G. "Stu" Stout, Jr.
   Vince Palamara
   Secret Service expert, History Channel, author of 2 books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.