Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Plausible Denial Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK by Mark Lane Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane. Book Review: Plausible Denial. Dr. Grover B. Proctor, Jr. "Not another book on the Kennedy assassination." Undoubtedly, some will say that on seeing attorney Mark Lane's newest volume on the booksellers' stands. Some will turn away in anger, supposing it an unpatriotic response to governmental agencies who have already told us what happened, written by someone they believe is merely trying to enrich himself by peddling conspiratorial claptrap. Others will be offended by what they see as an indelicate affront to the Kennedy legacy and family. However, for those serious about the rational and logical discourse of unresolved historical questions, who are not afraid to be given answers that are at once disturbing, well reasoned, and imminently readable, Lane's book is a must. To describe the book using Rumpole of the Bailey's phrase "a rattling good yarn" is to say that it is as engrossing as a John le Carre or Len Deighton novel. But the spies Lane talks of here are not cold warriors defending the free world from the international communist conspiracy, but rather possible conspirators themselves in an American coup d'etat. Among the first and for a long time the best criticism of the Warren Commission's official version that lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the president, Lane's seminal first book Rush to Judgment literally cited chapter and verse to demonstrate that the Warren Report was, in his words, "a fraudulent document." In an interview given while he was in Dallas for a recent symposium on the Kennedy assassination, Lane told me that in those early days he did not immediately come to the conclusion that the CIA had killed Kennedy. "I did know, of course, that there were powerful forces involved in covering up the facts. I didn't know then, but I know now, that the Central Intelligence Agency reviewed my book Rush to Judgment before I got a copy of it, and what they said about it, and that they thought it was dangerous and had to be stopped." Plausible Denial is not intended to be a broad overview of the intricasies of the case and the reasons for disbelieving the official version. For that, one would be advised to turn to Anthony Summers' Conspiracy or other books currently on the market. Here, Lane tells the story of Liberty Lobby, a controversial Washington, DC political organization, whose newspaper the Spotlight had published an article in 1978 alledging that the CIA was going to identify Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt as a conspirator in the JFK assassination. Hunt, having always denied the charge, sued both the organization and the author of the article, Victor Marchetti, a former CIA official whose book "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" was the first book in American history to be subjected to pre-publication censorship. When the original trial, which had netted a victory for Hunt and a settlement approaching three-quarters of a million dollars, was overturned on appeal, Lane agreed to take up the defense on the condition that he be allowed to turn the litigation into a courtroom examination of Hunt's (and the CIA's) true role in Dallas. The trial is the framework around which Lane builds the book's examination of what he sees as the CIA's role in both planning and executing the plot, and then in covering up the true facts. The story weaves its way through Lane's discovery in the mid-70s of evidence which to him proved CIA complicity, through his involvement with the Liberty Lobby case, and on to the trial and final verdict. Lane is very careful to tell his story in the order that it happened, so the surprise witness that crumbled Hunt's alibi doesn't really make an entrance until late in the book. Some will call it grandstanding; others, a rattling good yarn. In addition to the story, Lane gently provides the reader with a remarkably detailed yet painless primer on the American adjudication process of libel, a surprising and most enlightening benefit. While it's a matter of record, quietly disregarded by most news media at the time, that Lane won the case, the degree of his success in trying Hunt, in effect, for the murder of Kennedy only emerges in this book. Jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong offered this assessment of the trial: "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very he was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy." Along the way, Lane demonstrates not only that his skills as a trial attorney have only sharpened over the years, but also that his writing style is as urbane, witty and narrative as it is cool, analytical and precise. As he has since his days as self-styled "counsel for Lee Oswald," Lane continues to maintain Oswald's innocence in the assassination. Lane confirmed to me what Victor Marchetti had told me ten years ago concerning Oswald's call from the Dallas jail to the home of a former Army counterintelligence agent in Raleigh, North that Oswald demonstrated all the actions of someone who believed he was working for intelligence. Couple that with Senator Richard Schweiker's 1978 statement that Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence, if not all over him, at least all pointing to him, and Lane's central thesis becomes less fantastic. The best thing I can say about this book is that you will not be able to put it down, and in my view you shouldn't. Implausible Assertions. M ark Lane is a lawyer. That’s a good starting point for understanding his approach to the Kennedy assassination. Lawyers can get in trouble for telling outright lies, but they are free to – indeed are expected to – present only that information that serves the interests of their clients. They are free to – indeed are expected to – spin any piece of information to benefit their clients. In a legal proceeding where both sides have competent legal counsel, this is the way an adversarial system of justice works. But it’s not a good way to write a book. Which brings us to Plausible Denial , Lane’s conspiracy volume published in 1991. The book is a hodgepodge of conspiracy arguments and conspiracy claims, but the central focus is on a trial in which ex-CIA operative E. Howard Hunt sued the Liberty Lobby for libel. The Liberty Lobby was a rather nasty anti-Semitic operation that published a magazine called The Spotlight. In 1976, The Spotlight ran an article accusing Hunt of being in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and having a role in the Kennedy assassination. Hunt won a libel judgment against The Spotlight in 1981, but it was thrown out on appeal, and the case was retried in 1985 in Miami. Lane, a Jew, defended the Liberty Lobby. To hear Lane tell it, he convinced the jury that there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, and that Hunt was a part of that conspiracy. Where was E. Howard Hunt in November 22, 1963? Lane’s first tactic to convict Hunt is to claim that the latter had no alibi for November 22, 1963. Of course, Lane has to admit that Hunt’s fellow CIA employees said he was in Washington, DC., but he strongly implies that they must have been lying. First, Lane discusses one Walter Kuzmuk. Kuzmuk was a CIA officer who had worked with Hunt. To the jurors at the first trial, his testimony may have seemed dispositive of the question of Hunt’s whereabouts on November 22, 1963; an experienced, ranking officer of the CIA had seen him in Washington just as the president was being shot in Dallas. According to Kuzmuk, Hunt and his wife had driven by in the early afternoon of November 22 as he exited from a downtown Washington restaurant. Kuzmuk repeated this testimony at the second trial. Since Kuzmuk worked for the CIA, Lane can assume that conspiracy-oriented readers will happily accept that he was a liar, so Lane asks rhetorically, “Was Kuzmuk a CIA-arranged witness?” Lane then nitpicks Kuzmuk’s testimony, attempting to convince readers that minor discrepancies are the tip-off that Kuzmuk is indeed lying. Another witness to Hunt being in Washington, indeed at the CIA, on the day of the assassination was Connie Mazerov. In contrast to other witnesses, who are quoted a length, Lane offers one dismissive paragraph on her. Connie Mazerov offered the most pathetic testimony I had encountered in some time. It was a sad rendition of the stand-by-your-man theme . . . . She had seen Hunt early that morning. As to the meetings he was supposed to have attended later that morning (according to one of Hunt’s versions of events), she couldn’t recall seeing him there. She never saw anyone else that morning who could have seen him. She was apparently willing to help Hunt out, but not if she had to name a single other person who might come forward to dispute her account. Lane, faced with a witness who confirms Hunt’s presence at CIA headquarters, in effect calls her a liar and spins her lack knowledge of precise details of events that happened 22 years before as evidence that she lied.. But Hunt had yet a third CIA alibi witness, whom Lane conceals from his readers. Lane throws out a red herring by mentioning a woman supposedly called “Betty McDonald.” When [Walter] Kuzmuk was asked who might have seen Hunt that day if he had been in the office, he replied Betty McDonald. He did not mention Mazerov. The plaintiff did not call McDonald; Hunt explained that she had been absent that day. Lane is right that no “Betty McDonald” testified. But the woman in question was actually named Elizabeth (“Betty”) Macintosh and she did appear and supported Hunt. While Lane has avoided literally telling a lie, he has pulled a stunt that would get him disbarred if tried before any judge. But Lane can be confident that the vast majority of his readers have no way of knowing what he’s doing. Did Hunt’s Family Say He Was in DC? Since Hunt claimed to have been in the Washington area, and to have spent the afternoon with his family, it might seem important to ask what they say about his whereabouts. And if you believe Lane, the answer is damning. Lane extensively quotes his own cross-examination of Hunt to throw Hunt’s alibi into question. Q. Do you recall testifying back on December 16, 1981, that when the allegation was made that you were in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, your children were really upset? Do you recall testifying to that? Q. Do you recall testifying that you had to reassure them that you were not in Texas that day? Q. That you had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination? Q. And that you were being persecuted for reasons that were unknown to you? Q. Did you say that the allegation that you were in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, was the focus of a great deal of interfamily friction, and tended to exacerbate difficulties in the family? “Mr. Hunt, why did you have to convince your children that you were not in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, if, in fact, as you say, a fourteen-year-old daughter, a thirteen-year-old daughter, and a ten-year old son were with you in the Washington, D.C., area on November 22, 1963, and were with you at least for the next forty-eight hours, as you all stayed glued to the T.V. set?” If someone had struck Hunt in the face his reaction would not have been more physical. His head jerked back. . . . The delay before Hunt responded seemed interminable. In absolute time it probably was not more than half a minute. Finally Hunt spoke, looking away from the jurors: I answered, “Please. It is a question.” He spoke quickly, as if he hoped the subject would soon be forgotten. “These were unformed minds, and I felt that it was absolutely imperative that I remind them of the circumstances attendant upon our family that day. “Yet, my other son, Howard St. John, had read in the Berkeley Barb and in other papers these constant reiterations of my involvement in the Kennedy assassination. “So, it was less a question of my convincing them that I was in Washington, D.C., with them – rather, reminding them that I was – than it was to assure them that none of the charges and allegations that had been made, particularly those of the tramp in Dealey Plaza, had any substance to them at all.” Q. One can see where they might be disturbed that you were being charged with this. But weren’t they of the opinion that there were three people who could prove to the whole world that these charges were a tissue of lies, that “I was with my father during that whole time period?” What I want to know is since they knew how outrageous the lies were, why did they have to be convinced by you that you weren’t in Texas? A. Reminded, reminded. Q. They didn’t remember that themselves? Hunt paused again. He wiped his forehead with a handkerchief. A. The constant reiteration of these charges, in one form or another, had an extremely deleterious effect on my children. I conferred with them, I answered their questions. I gave them every assurance that I was never in Dealey Plaza at any time in my life – not only on the fatal day, but the day before, the day after. In short, never. That was the type of assurance I was forced to give to my family. Hunt’s explanations only exacerbated the matter. If the three children had been exposed to the false allegations over a period of time, does it not seem likely that they would remember somewhere along the line where they had spent one of the most traumatic moments of their lives and who had been with them? Why had they not shouted out that their father was innocent? Failing that, how could they require constant reminders from their father that they had all been together that day? The record revealed that as each new allegation was made, asserting that E. Howard Hunt had been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the children, then adults, demanded to know if the charges were true. These three witnesses were to offer the essential testimony placing Hunt hundreds of miles from the crime. They, not the two CIA-arranged witnesses, held in their hands the alibi their father so desperately required. This testimony might seem terribly damning, but only because Lane has omitted some key facts. In 1974 the Rockefeller Commission investigated Hunt’s whereabouts on the day of the assassination. First, Hunt testified under oath that he was in the Washington area. Two of his children also testified that he was there, as did a domestic employee of his family. (A son of Hunt’s who was nine years old did not remember where his parents were that day, and Hunt’s youngest son had not been born. Hunt’s wife was deceased by the time of the Commission.) Lane most certainly knew about the Rockefeller Commission, since he mentions it in Plausible Denial . So a total of six people had testified that Hunt was in Washington on the day of the assassination. Lane lacks the chutzpah to conceal all of them, so he mentions, and denigrates, two who worked for the CIA. He conceals the other CIA witness ( Elizabeth Macintosh) by using another witness’ confusion about her name. And he entirely conceals the fact that three witnesses in the Hunt household (two children and a domestic) told the Rockefeller Commission that he was there. Lane used unreliable testimony to accuse American soldiers of multiple atrocities during the Vietnam War Lane misrepresented the testimony of a Tippit shooting witness, Helen Markham, to the Warren Commission Lane, in his book Rush to Judgment , misrepresented the Warren Commission testimony of Jack Ruby. Marita Lorenz: Tying Hunt to a Conspiracy. Having convinced uninformed and perhaps credulous readers that Hunt had no reliable alibi for his whereabouts on the day of the assassination, Lane now proceeds to tie Hunt to the assassination plot. To do so, he produces one single witness, a woman named Marita Lorenz. Lorenz claimed to have been a CIA operative who was Castro’s mistress. Lorenz testified via a deposition that was read to the court. She told of an assassination caravan consisting of two cars and several conspirators who drove from Miami to Dallas before the assassination, arriving on November 21 st . Most significantly, for the purposes of the trial, her testimony placed Hunt – using the name “Eduardo” – at the motel where the conspirators were staying, giving them a sum of money. If Lorenz was telling the truth, then Hunt was most certainly an assassination conspirator. But Lane fails to tell his readers that her testimony had been in the public domain for several years, and had been found to lack credibility – even among conspiracy-oriented researchers who wanted to blame the CIA for the assassination. During 1977 and 1978, Lorenz’ claims were extensively investigated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Chief Counsel Robert Blakey outlined the Committee’s conclusions: We also rejected the story of Marita Lorenz, who told us she had driven from Miami to Dallas on November 15, 1963, with Oswald and several anti-Castro activists, including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Orlando Bosch, a terrorist . . . Pedro Diaz-Lanz, the former Cuban Air Force chief, and Frank Sturgis, who was arrested in the Watergate break-in in 1972. All four men denied Lorenz’s charge emphatically, and we could find no evidence to refute them. Lorenz, who claimed to have been Fidel Castro’s mistress as well as the instrument of an attempt by the CIA to poison Castro . . . did not help her credibility by telling us that when she arrived in Dallas with Oswald and the anti-Castro activists, they were contacted at their motel by Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby’s whereabouts were tracked in meticulous detail by the Warren Commission, and there is no possibility he could have gone to any motel as Lorenz described. Likewise, Oswald’s whereabouts were also well accounted for during the days before the assassination, and a car trip by him from Miami to Dallas was entirely out of the question. So what happened to Oswald in Lorenz’ trial testimony? The following is from her deposition for the Hunt v. Liberty Lobby trial. Q. [from Hunt’s lawyer, Mr. Dunne] Who were the people in the cars? A PERSUASIVE CASE AGAINST THE CIA. Mark Lane says this is his last book on the Kennedy assassination. After almost 30 years on the case, maybe he wants to go out a winner. ''Plausible Denial'' chronicles Lane`s courtroom victory in a little-known defamation case he thinks solved the crime of the century, proving that the CIA killed President John Kennedy. As a dean among conspiracy theorists, Lane has long believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy for an assassination conspiracy. But for a volunteer investigator, without subpoena power, answers can be hard to come by. Once in court, in this lawsuit, all that changed. Lane could get sworn answers to searching questions. The courtroom door was opened to Lane by the unlikeliest of people: ex-CIA operative (and convicted Watergte burglar) E. Howard Hunt, who sued a newspaper publisher for defamation after the paper published an article asserting Hunt might have been implicated in the assassination. At the 1985 trial, Hunt told the jury he was most injured by the doubts the article raised about him in the minds of his family. He won a judgment of $650,000. Enter Lane. In a second trial, after an appeal, Lane defended the Liberty Lobby, publisher of the newspaper ''Spotlight.'' His defense strategy turned upon convincing the jury of the truth of a central assertion of the article-that Hunt was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. After a parade of scene-setting depositions with tight-lipped CIA brass-including former Directors Richard Helms and Stansfield Turner, and former Western Hemisphere head David Atlee Phillips-Lane zeroed in on Hunt, setting a snare worthy of Perry Mason, which, according to Lane, demolished Hunt in the eyes of the jury. Suffice it to say, this passage of the transcript provides one of the most memorable variations ever on a great question of our time: Where were you when President Kennedy was shot? Another bombshell was delivered by mystery woman Marita Lorenz, onetime love of Cuba`s Fidel Castro. In depositions under oath that were read to the jury, Lorenz testified that shortly before the assassination, working as a CIA operative, she drove to Dallas from Miami with a CIA assassination squad, and that Hunt met the group in Dallas on the evening of Nov. 21, 1963, with an envelope of money. After the meeting with Hunt, according to Lorenz, a man she later recognized as Lee Harvey Oswald`s killer, Jack Ruby, came to the motel. Then Lorenz was allowed to fly back to Miami. Later, according to Lorenz, one of the conspirators chided her for leaving Dallas, saying: ''We killed the president that day. You could have been a part of it-you know, part of history.'' Do we believe this story? That, of course, is the million-dollar question. After listening to all the testimony, the jury acquitted the publisher, a clear victory for Lane. But this was a trial for defamation, not assassination. Hunt was the plaintiff, not the defendant. The verdict leaves Lorenz`s story wide open to debate. Lane says the jury believed Lorenz, and the book`s dust jacket quotes its foreman saying that ''when we examined the evidence, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy.'' [PDF] [EPUB] Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? Download. [PDF] [EPUB] Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? Download by Mark Lane . Download Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane in PDF EPUB format complete free. Brief Summary of Book: Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane. Here is a quick description and cover image of book Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? written by Mark Lane which was published in 1991-1-1 . You can read this before Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? PDF EPUB full Download at the bottom. The explosive facts surrounding the CIA’s involvement in President Kennedy’s murder, presented for the first time in paperback. In 1966, Lane was therst to expose the flaws in the Warren Commission’s official report, and his bestselling book Rush to Judgment revealed that Oswald could not have acted alone. Now he continues his ground-breaking investigation. 15 photographs. Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane – eBook Details. Before you start Complete Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? PDF EPUB by Mark Lane Download, you can read below technical ebook details: Full Book Name: Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? Author Name: Mark Lane Book Genre: Conspiracy Theories, Crime, History, Mystery, Nonfiction, Politics, Pseudoscience, True Crime ISBN # 9781560250487 Edition Language: English Date of Publication: 1991-1-1 PDF / EPUB File Name: Plausible_Denial_-_Mark_Lane.pdf, Plausible_Denial_-_Mark_Lane.epub PDF File Size: 2.8 MB EPUB File Size: 1.9 MB. [PDF] [EPUB] Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? Download. If you are still wondering how to get free PDF EPUB of book Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane. Click on below buttons to start Download Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane PDF EPUB without registration. This is free download Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane complete book soft copy. Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? by Mark Lane. Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? Description. The assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 continues to be shrouded in mystery and controversy. In Plausible Denial , Mark Lane, the author of Rush to Judgment , the provocative and bestselling critique of the Warren Commission, reveals startling evidence about the CIA’s involvement in a plot to murder the president. In 1978, when a small magazine ran a story by CIA renegade Victor Marchetti linking ex-CIA operative and convicted Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt to the assassination, Hunt sued for defamation. Lane signed on as defense counsel for the publication, and set out to prove the truth of the allegations against Hunt and the CIA. Lane’s investigation uncovered a web of conspiracy that involved anti-Castro Cubans, Watergate conspirators, and public officials at the highest levels of the intelligence community. The forewoman of the jury, Leslie Armstrong, stated that “Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy.” Meticulously documented and compellingly written, this book makes public the contents of this curiously unpublicized trial, the only jury verdict directly related to the theory that the CIA was involved in the assassination.