CTKA reviews Mark lane's new book

[Seamus Coogan]

Mark Lane's half-century summation does not warrant seven thousand words of nitpickingBuy the book, read it, and get on with the fight.

The introductory disclaimer is patronizing: "a little disappointing" "little that is really new" "awkwardly written" "poorly edited" "numerous typographical errors" "no index" "poorly sourced"and succeeds in missing the point entirely.

At eighty-four I see it as Lane's equivalent to Harold Weisberg's Case Open, passionate, a passing of the torch, an urging to not go gentle into that good night.

I "Mark lane (s/b cap) is, after all, the man Warren Commission apologists love to hate(,) and with the exception of the late(,) great Jim Garrison, no ©ommission critic has suffered as many baseless personal attacks."

II "somewhat egocentric"Same could be said of Fonzi, Last Investigation, but that's a plus, in both casesit's why we grab the book and don't want to put it down.

III Lane was right: Oswald was not in Mexico City. Hay presumes to know what LBJ believednot possible, not plausible. Hay takes Lane to task for insisting CIA entirely responsible, should've looked at Phillips' manipulating Cuban enmityoh come now: the Bay of Pigs contrivance put "traitor" on the lips of everyone involved, Cuban, American, exile, military, the full catastrophe.

IV Hay cites what Posner said Lopez said re Laneunpack that for the TSA. It's explosive. I wouldn't believe Posner if were defending the late Karzai from attacks he was a CIA tool and a drug lord.

V "Although I make no claim to be expert in legal matters"quite right, let's just leave it at that, shall we.

The CTKA review is the cross to exorcise the likes of a Bugliosiwe await the publication of the ten-part opus.

As for the Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK, it does what it says, and goes where it should.

If I want one hundred pages of end notes, I'll reopen my Douglass and lament there weren't another hundred, so good was the author at that.

But we're indicting here.

Ye gods and little fishes, we have a national security state whose sword and shield was forged in 1947 and 1949 from steel in use during WW II, which didn't stop with six shooters putting more lead in JFK's head than a Prius battery, but went on and on and on to knock down towers with people in them to invade countries on false pretext, to harvest the heroin for the world's habit and arm the narcogangs in our own backyard.

Let the experienced lawyer finish his final summation.

The prosecution rests.

God speed Mark Lane's personalized mission for justice.

Lol most direct I've seen you in awhile dear Phil. Like with Al I also get where your coming from.

I have to say vis a vis your comments, that I don't think Martin was intending a criticism of Lane. As you would know by Martins posts on the Ed Forum he's pretty blunt and he's very English in that regard. I'm from New Zealand and I get with that direct style. Lol, you Americans like the sentiment a little to much lol. The writing style we have of course put's more of the onus on the author at times.

Let's just say, Martin realises that Lane is a vintage classic. An irreplacable and unique model. Like say a rare 50's Aston Marton. It's loved and respected for what it has done and what it can still do. But it's almost like it's in pristine condition. It hasn't been taken out of the garage for a run in awhile. If we look at the other batch of Marton's like say Marcus and Salandria the output was never as much but they were constantly fine tuning their stuff. Marcus in particular is very up on the latest developments in the case, ask Jim Di those guys have some great back and forths on the emails and the phone. Help and there's also Jack White. Whether you agree or disagree he's pretty dang well up on most things.

I think Lanes maintenance team let him down a little. A person with his performance record in JFK needs their history and it should be footnoted Phil mate. And out of respect to the vehicle it should also be carefully edited. This maybe his final showing on the case you know you wanna go out on an Abbey Road rather than say a Greatest Hits compilation. Sure he's allowed to be out of step with say Mexico City, hell there's some new stuff I am well behind on myself. But who convinced him to put 'My indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK' When as Marty says it actually goes on to talk about Bugliosi and others. Sure they are stooges, but it renders the title inaccurate. If it had said something like 'My Commentaries on the CIA and their allies in the Murder of JFK'. Hey as said to Al buddy, Marty says it's still worthwhile.