Truck Month Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Bob Dylan Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick The Baby Store Shop now Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Outdoor Recreation SnS

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on August 30, 2006
Witness the two articles below, one written about six weeks before the assassination:

The New York Times

October 3, 1963 p. 34

The Intra-Administration

War in Vietnam

By Arthur Krock

... One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "according to a high United States source here, twice the C.I.A. flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge . . . [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it." Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official . . . who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy . . . are the following:

The C.I.A.'s growth was "likened to a malignancy" which the "very high official was not sure even the White House could control . . . any longer." "If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon." The agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."

... The C.I.A. may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press "briefings" employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of the agency's case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the C.I.A. preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based.


... and one written exactly four weeks after the assassination by former President Harry S. Truman, no less:

The Washington Post

December 22, 1963 - page A11

Harry Truman Writes:

Limit CIA Role To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 -- I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency--CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets ...

... But their (C.I.A.'s) collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

... For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations ... But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field--and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.


11 comment|45 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 11, 2000
I was shattered by the assassination of President Kennedy and watched the events on t.v. I was a student at U.C.L.A. I recall so often having been full of pride for my country because of the words he spoke at a press conference which I heard on the car radio as I drove to the university.
Friday, November 22, 1963. I remained in front of the t.v. for endless hours. Certainly never, in my imagination, did it occur that I would eventually be involved in the investigation of the murder of the President.
While I was in college, and because of my respect for President Kennedy, I wrote him a letter and received an aides' letter back. It remained framed above my desk for years. I got a lot of ribbing from my roommates. I transferred to UCLA. I continued to be proud of my country and my President. And then, he was murdered.
I recall when I drove to Santa Barbara to hear Mark Lane speak about his book, Rush To Judgment.
I spent time with Mark Lane and learned about New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison. And when Mark introduced me to him, I offered my services at no cost, as a specialist in photography, never realizing how important that promise might become.
Mark Lane's commitment to the truth and to bringing the assassins to justice for the murder of John Kennedy never wavered and I decided to work for Garrison and with Lane nomatter what. I was motivated by my respect for what John Kennedy meant to me as a President. I also respected Lane and Garrison for their absolute, clear and selfless dedication to the task of prosecuting the assassins of President Kennedy. Mark Lane had been the friend of President Kennedy and his campaign manager for the presidential campaign in in New York. Lane's analysis of the assassination in his first book, and later in PLAUSIBLE DENIAL, demonstrated his unique mind as an attorney, that of someone who would eventually become one of our nation's history's greatest advocates. Lane's world famous book, Rush To Judgment, became the number one best seller in America and the world in the first year of its publication. Though his book was clearly a classic cornerstone of history, the U.S. publishers initially turned it down. Lane eventually had to go to a British publishing company to get it published, though almost all of the American publishers initially wanted it and even some of them even "optioned" it, though they unexpectedly later rejected it after a visit from the FBI agents answsering to Hoover.
The truth about the facts of the assassination of President Kennedy survives today because of one man, Mark Lane, who lived by the words of Kennedy when he said that one man could make a difference.
I had no idea that the FBI, the CIA, and law enforcement in New Orleans and Louisiana, were so commited to stopping those of us who were simimlarly dedicated to exposing the truth about the political assassination of president Kennedy.
Eventually, we all endured a life changing events as a result of our commitments. As of this writing, I have elected not to write a book about this subject. However, I encourage you to read Mark Lane's historic works on the subject if you want to know the truth. In fact, government agencies have spent millions of dollars to publish things on the Internet to respond to Mark Lane's works. You would be shocked at how much the government has used of your tax dollars to establish a "lasting denial" of Lane's books on the subject. Nothing is more appropriate than the quote of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., than the phrase that, "the truth crushed to earth shall rise again." In the case of the assassination of our President, John Kennedy, the works in writing of the life dedicated by Mark Lane to that truth about the assassination of John Kennedy will ultimately prevail.
As one person, who has participated in the investigation, first hand, I urge you to read PLAUSIBLE DENIAL. And I hope that history will soon record the truth about who really killed our dear President. I know that I will continue to work on getting the history books corrected from what they have published now. I assure you that what your children read regarding the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy, is neither true nor what he would want your children to read in terms of what he stood for as a man, as a senator, as a president, or as a fallen leader.
33 comments|70 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 24, 2001
This seminal book, not the Warren Commission, should be the jumping off point for any discussion of the murder of JFK.
The Warren Commission never extended to the murdered Oswald the right to defend his reputation by cross examining witnesses, calling witnesses and otherwise having his day in court. In a civil libel case, E. Howard Hunt Vs. The Liberty Lobby (1985) former CIA man, (and convicted Watergate felon) E. Howard Hunt had these traditional legal rights. The issue at stake was whether he had been paymaster of the JFK asassination for the CIA in Dalles. This is a book about a real trial. Lane establishes means , motive, and opportunity, demolishes Hunt's allibi, and places him at the scene with credible eyewitness testimony. Most damaging in my mind was the evidence that Hunt and CIA planted faked evidence to falsely implicate JFK in the murder of South Vietnamese President Diem. The Miami jury overturned a $650,000 libel award by a lower court, and opined that criminal prosecution of Hunt and 5 other ex-CIA operatives was called for. The national media ran from this verdict like it was a live bomb. Few Americans realize that it is a legally true statement that "Hunt and CIA murdered JFK". A brave and brilliant book.
0Comment|28 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 27, 2001
The truth of what really happened re: the murder of J.F.K. is remarkably complex. Mark Lane tries to simplify it somewhat in this book, with some likely and inevitable distortions. This is, however, one of the more creditable examinations of the assassination, and it's one you *should* read, if you're interested in the subject. The other reviewers have given good descriptions of the basic contents. There are also a couple of truly fascinating items, which I'll point out below.
One must always remember, I think, that all these events took place *before* the Freedom of Information Act. If, at times, the characters involved seem utterly stupid in thinking no one would ever find out what they did...well, in those days, the idea that anyone ever *would* find out was beyond imagination. History has also shown that the CIA has made more than a few unlikely alliances in pursuing their "worthy" goals. In this case, the goal was anti-Castro, and an alliance with organized crime seems not only a possibly, but rather likely...don't you think? It's happened since, too. So, when Mark Lane asks, "Was the CIA involved in the assassination of JFK?"...I have to ask in reply, "Why is that such a far-fetched idea?" You might want to take a look at Don DeLillo's LIBRA for a reasonable depiction of just how the CIA might have been involved, and why.
One of the more interesting bits in this book is Lane's record of the deposition of Castro's girlfriend at the time, Marita Lorenz. She describes an interesting senario of an aborted assassination "attempt" in Miami, and then an all-night drive by several cars to Dallas, where the historical events took place. Again, these events are eerily repeated in DeLillo's LIBRA (without Lorenz, and minus one car). The idea was, it is alleged, that the original idea was to have a *failed* assassination attempt, hoping to turn the country against Cuba, and to overthrow Castro. If this is in any way accurate, boy did that plan go wrong!
Most fascinating of all, Lane includes some information about the CIA's Operation Zapata (AKA The Bay Of Pigs). Lane presents some fascinating evidence that former president George Bush was, in fact, *the* operative in charge of that mission (something the CIA has always denied officially). Consider this, says Lane: Bush was involved in Zapata Petroleum in Texas, and Zapata Off Shore Co. (he was the CEO from 1956 to 1964). And the names of the two boats the CIA used? "Barbara" and "Houston."
What we see in all of this is how intensely focused everything was on Cuba back then. The USA wanted communism out. American business and organized crime wanted their money and property back. It seems likely to me that they were all willing to do most anything and everything to reach that goal. But, were they willing to go so far as this (and other books) suggest? I'm sure each of us will have our own opinion on that.
0Comment|32 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 17, 2005
The hit WAS a very stupid, sloppy job that HAS been exposed (about 3/4's of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission's report) it's just that the government and the controlled media keep insisting JFK was hit in the back of the head despite all the evidence to the contrary. JFK's assistant press secratary pointed to his right temple during a press conference though they never show that anymore. It's very similar to 9/11. WTC - 7 was clearly a classic controlled demolition (you will never see that "collapse" on mainstream TV again) and numerous survivors talked about bombs going off in the buildings yet the steel was never checked for explosives because the head of FEMA's investigation claimed he didn't know there was such a test. One of the signs of fascism is you only hear the truth once.

Back to the thesis of the book - how can you NOT suspect the CIA? They'd been fighting with Kennedy from the beginning and he was going end the organization. Then somehow Allan Dulles, who was fired by Kennedy, makes it to the Warren Commission. Nothing suspicious there.

I would also recommend "Final Judgement" by Michael Collins Piper which can be considered a sequal to "Plausible Denial.
0Comment|27 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 4, 2001
At 2 a.m. this morning I finished reading this book, two days after starting it. Its detailed layout explained the facts and how they played out by the characters that were involved.
I had previously read Lane's book "Rush To Justice", many years ago, and because of it, I began to collect everything I could find regarding the JFK assassination. But somehow, I had missed "Plausible Denial" until I picked it up at a library.
Lane's presentation is phenomenally convincing. The incredibly, meticulous manner in which he explains how he legally exposed the roles that the key people played in the murder plot is astounding.
As he tells the story, the reader is able to analyze the characteristics of many persons who were in the background of E. Howard Hunt's involvement in arranging JFK's assassination for the CIA and higherups in this country.
The shocking reality that the book presents is that we have a government that is invisibly run by wealthy industrial and financial persons, who control the intelligence agencies for their benefit and order them to illegally and clandestinely remove leaders, worldwide, who try to free their people from U.S. control.
If it were not for courageous work by men like Mark Lane, who risk their lives to expose the secrets and tell the truth, life for Americans and others would be hopeless, especially for the young. This book should be in every school and home. It is a must read!!
0Comment|18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 26, 2001
Mark Lane has done the unthinkable. That's right, he's taken perhaps the most noticeable step in solving the JFK murder case. This book details his trial encounter with E. Howard Hunt, in the famous but not publicized trial - Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby 2.

By clever investigating and excellent lawyer tactics, Lane gets incredible testimony from people who had some parts in the JFK case. Such ones are Marita Lorenz, with her disturbingly believable account of what took place the day before the death of JFK. She pretty much indicts Howard Hunt for what he says he had no part of.

The book is written extremely well, with an excellent forward by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. Throughout the book Lane shows you key points to solving the case before him. He pretty much did little with regards the actual court case, once he was given permission to persue Hunt for reasons pertaining to JFK. Lane somehow gets great testimony from people such as Richard Helms, and others high up there. Throughout the entire time he's investigating things, he's blocked in many areas from people who don't want to give out info. that deals with case. Remind you of anyone else...(Jim Garrison).
You will thoroughly enjoy this amazing book. I'm very surprised more people aren't aware of it, and the trial it coincides with. Goes to show the gov't hard at work to prevent the truth from surfacing.
Enjoy it!
0Comment|15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 11, 2006
I came to know Mark Lane very intimately over a period of ten years - where we shared, exchanged, many long hours of intense discussion on the JFK and MLK assassinations.

He captivated me with intricate details of the various events and supportive data sources. Through him - I relived these very complexed parts of American History as he awakened me to a darker deeper side of political shennanigans - not too unlike those which continued to take place in my own country.

This very calm ... quiet man - often barely audible is one of the five most thought provoking people in my personal life. Yes, Mark Lane makes you think - without bludgeoning one over the head with senseless rhetoric or inflamatory diatribes.

I recall how Oliver Stone borrowed Plausible Denial in preparation for his movie of the JFK Assassination - only to return it many months later (having discarded it as unhelpful) and yet using direct quotes from the book in the actual movie.

This seems to be the way of naysayers ... their modus operandi - to negate those with whom they disagree by plagarising them.

Is this then not the highest form of flattery?

I highly recommend anyone with an independent mind to read Plausible Denial - for it will open your mind to a lot more critical thinking - by questioning rushed decisions by those in power - whether politically, the private sector or public life.
0Comment|14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 19, 2013
Buy this Book because Mark Lane wrote it.

The story here is; that every review reader Now
knows that CIA agent E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas
and involved in the JFK assassination.

The 1966 Rush to Judgment was a masterpiece in
Investigative Research in Dallas with Real Witnesses
in Real Time of the actual Events.

Way Back then: Mark Lane Proved Oswald was innocent.

-Here with Plausible Denial, the Odd quirk of Fate
and opportunity allows the Civil Trial of a
Conspirator to the assassination to be exposed.

Written nearly 30 years after the fact, it is a Given
that all the Lone Nutter, Warren Commission is Crapola.

This has the Factual basis of the 'under oath' testimonies
and Documents all presented in Lay terms and an
understanding of sharp Lawyer maneuvering required
to outwit the CIA during a Jury Trial.

-Why did E. Howard Hunt allow himself to become
exposed to Court system...?

-greed...same 'ol Hunt from the Watergate Era.
Former CIA Agent Hunt wanted to profit from his Lies,
By suing a publication for reporting the Truth.

And the Smirk Government wanted this to all go away
by the End of the Trail...too Late...

Mark Lane was/is the forebear of the Critics and
Proven Conspiracy of the JFK Assassination.

The CIA and E. Howard Hunt should have known this
was no ordinary Lawyer here...? -Actually they Did.

Rush to Judgment reads as if the events were yesterday.
As an Author, Mr. Lane was Fresh onto the Facts.
He wrote with first hand knowledge breaking the
Warren Report apart with unreported testimonies.

That Book has all the Legal Brief type material.
-and grabs the readers' attention of what really happened
in Dallas.

This Book reads as if Mr. Lane exhausted his efforts
to Prove E. Howard Hunt and the CIA were behind the
JFK assassination during a real Court Trial by Jury.

-Although He obtained what was the object of the Case,
maybe the 30 years of obfuscation by the Government
has taken it's toll on everyone, especially Mark Lane.

However, do not let any of that guff cause the
review reader from missing out on the Good Stuff...

Mark Lane Proves the CIA and E. Howard Hunt were in Dallas
to assassinate JFK.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 21, 2000
On the one hand it is truly surprising this book by Mark Lane did not receive greater coverage. On the other hand, given the fact that official Washington has never deviated from its view that President Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, the dearth of coverage was to be expected.
What makes this book special is that Mark Lane uses federal trial transcripts and deposition testimony to prove his point. That point is: the Central Intellligence Agency was complicit in the murder of President Kennedy.
I was unaware that Mark Lane is an experienced litigator who had criminal trial experience prior to JFK's murder in November 1963. In December 1963 he wrote an article which set forth a lawyer's defense for Lee Harvey Oswald. By that time Oswald was dead, having been murdered in the Dallas jailhouse two days after Kennedy was murdered. Lane pointed out one month after the assassination that a jury most likely would not have found Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Warren Commission and its 26 volumes went to greath length to show that Oswald was the lone assassin. Mark Lane's 1966 'Rush to Judgment' became the seminal work in disputing the lone assassin finding.
Perhaps 'Plausible Denial', coming almost 30 years after JFK's murder was old news. Whatever the reason this work has been sadly ignored. Mark Lane was defending a publication which had been sued by E. Howard Hunt for defamation. The publication maintained that E. Howard Hunt, veteran CIA operative and convicted Watergate burglar, was in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Lane's book lays the groundwork to show that Hunt's contention he was in Washington, DC that is unprovable. Instead, Lane uses E. Howard Hunt's contradictory testimony under oath to show that nobody can say he was there.
Instead, Lane brings forth witnesses who cannot say he was in Washington DC and a witness who says she met him in Dallas just prior to Kennedy's murder.
Natually, there is much more to all this than E. Howard Hunt. What Lane shows the reader is that the whole matter of President Kennedy's murder is an issue which will never be truly resolved.
0Comment|11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse