CTKA reviews Mark lane's new book

[Seamus Coogan]

I think Hay is a little tough on Lane. Remember Lane is 84 and is writing this under the momentum gained by Douglass and the research community building-up to the anniversary. I think the context is Lane finally getting his 15 seconds of "I accuse" that no one could doubt he has earned.

Hay should have included that the two head shot successes were also at large stationary targets by top experts - which disqualified them on all counts. Also, what is essential to complete this 'recreation' would be taking a nitrate test from the shooter's cheek afterwards and having him come up negative like Oswald did.

I also see no need to call Lane's correct designation of the formation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations as being largely due to his influence "egocentric". It pretty much was. Lane emphasizes it in order to bolster his right and credibility in issuing an indictment. Lane being the one to serve it is OK with me.

I think Hay splits hairs on Lane's presentation of the Mexico City trip. All Lane really needs to do in his indictment is show good evidence for pre-knowledge by Phillips. Whether or not Oswald served as the patsy in an Operation Northwoods-type plan, all Lane needs to do is show a reasonable pattern for CIA involvement. If Oswald's being set-up led to an actual invasion or just led to the WWIII virus being planted in Johnson doesn't really matter. All that matters to an attorney making an indictment is that CIA was seen making moves for something it had it pre-knowledge of 7 weeks in advance. The points Hay makes might be valid, but they are secondary to Lane's purpose.

Sorry to say this, but I actually find Lane's version of Marita Lorenz stronger than Hay's. After all, she did explain a mundane technicality, the breakdown on the highway. She also bore witness to Hunt's pay-off and Ruby's appearance. It isn't impossible that both caravans took place. What I'd be interested in is whether Lorenz was taken along to replace Rose Cheramie's intended role? Or whether Lorenz was to be used as bait to further paint Castro as being involved? I'm very surprised that, after Douglass' proof of CIA doubles, Hay never considers that "Ozzie" might very well be one of the many notorious Oswald doubles seen throughout the assassination.

I'm further puzzled by Hay's claim that Lane fails to prove an indictment against CIA. If you read the paragraphs that follow Hay then proceeds to list the evidence showing CIA involvement without indicating where exactly Lane failed? The MKULTRA material is relevant because it has possible permutations in the Assassination. The very least of which is CIA's Technical Services Division, run by Nazi monster Sydney Gottlieb, was well into diabolical depravities equal to or worse than those committed in the Assassination. Lane goes as far as saying Gottlieb's MKULTRA offenses were on parr with those committed by the actual Nazis themselves. Showing this background, Lane then illustrates that the genuine Secret Service credentials possessed by both the fake Secret Service agent on the Grassy Knoll and those at the Depository could only have come from Gottlieb and his evil provenance.

Again, I think the review unfairly criticizes Lane and misses his intent. Lane is a lawyer. When making an indictment lawyers will try to streamline their evidence to limit the amount of means by which it will be questioned. Lawyers or prosecutors may sometimes have numerous charges by which they can accuse a defendant, however they'll stick to the best ones by which they'll get an indictment. I think Hay totally misses that that is exactly what Lane is doing here and explains why the things Hay protests are missing aren't there. Lane is trying to limit the material to that which he was most involved with or most closely pertains to things he discovered or witnessed. This strengthens his indictment instead weakening it.

While I appreciate and laud CTKA and it's offerings as the superlative material that rakes the Assassination with a merciless fine-toothed comb that it is, I think its usual approach is misplaced with Lane and serves as "friendly fire" in this case. Remember the methods being criticized here managed to gain a critical verdict in the conspiracy. And as far as Lane failing the research community level of information, well he isn't shooting for that, he's shooting for the official record and using the only tool that will affect it - the legal approach (something he already has a big victory under his belt from). Let Lane make his indictment and carry it through. He deserves it.

Good points Al. I think you have to remember that the comments from Lorenz came from Fonzi and Lopez. Though I do like your take on the Oswald double. In Fonzi's account it's mad lol. She was in the middle of trying to flog off movie scripts and christ knows what lol. Further Fonzi and Lopez are two very smart credible guys. So I don't think Marty's to far gone there, he's relaying their thoughts.

The reason why Al I think it's a good review, is because I sort of saw this coming after I heard Lane on BOR a few times recently. I think that the problem is that due to age (as you say) he is kinda on Automatic pilot. This is in regard to his experiences and his minimal usage of much more recent material. For Lane now it's more about self justification and getting the final word in against wankers like Bug.

I also think what Marty tried to do was say that the pitch of the book was probably wrong. I don't think he was directing this at Lane. Though you are right it might need more clarification. When people put stuff like 'The definitive account of the CIA killing JFK' on the cover or whatever, they do so for sales. I'd have a word to Lane's publishers about that. If it had been pitched as 'my last hurrah' or '49 years on the case' or 'True tales of a decades long dance with the agency' lol it would have been more appropriate in a retrospective manner and more fitting of the blokes legacy. So yeah I can see why you think Marty a little harsh and possibly Al he could have been a little more critical of the editorial team rather than Lane. I think that Marty was really genuinely dissapointed how it turned out. He is a bog Lane fan and thought he deserved a better send off. I think so too. Marty still thinks it's ultimately a worthwhile read.