CTKA reviews Mark lane's new book

[Jim DiEugenio]

http://ctka.net/reviews/last_word_lane.html

Martin Hay's review of Lane's Last Word.

[Seamus Coogan]

http://ctka.net/reviews/last_word_lane.html

Martin Hay's review of Lane's Last Word.

Go get em McFly. Good stuff Marty.

[Albert Doyle]

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.

[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.

[Phil Dragoo]

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.

[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.

[Albert Doyle]

Mark Lane responded today to questions asked to him on the Education Forum.



In one of his answers he remarked that he spoke to St John Hunt and found him credible.

[Albert Doyle]

Mark Lane answered Robert Morrow directly on the Education Forum, in response to his question about Nelson's Mastermind book, telling him he doesn't read speculative books on the assassination anymore because they tend to hide the real sponsors.


Devastating. Touche! Mr Lane!