Customer Reviews

Rush to Judgment

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Mark Lane is an attorney who took it upon himself, in the weeks following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his alleged killer Lee Harvey Oswald, to represent Oswald's mother and widow and to try to find any information he could to exonerate Oswald of the president's murder. What he found out is the basis of what I would consider the "original conspiracy theory" -- that Oswald, even if he did pull the trigger, did not act alone in killing JFK. You may have seen Oliver Stone's movie or read one of any number of theories about JFK's murder, ranging from the simple and plausible to the wildly complex. What sets Rush to Judgment apart is that Mark Lane doesn't set forth a theory of who he thinks did kill JFK. He doesn't even say that he is 100 percent sure Oswald didn't do it. What he does posit is that the Warren Commission appointed by President Johnson to investigate the assassination was too quick to finger Oswald as the lone assassin and that its investigations were badly handled, including ignoring evidence and witnesses that could have cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. Another thing that sets this book apart is that it was written only two years after JFK's death, and Mark Lane was thus able to attend many of the Warren Commission hearings personally and to interview many of the witnesses himself. Thus, his conclusions are not based on third-party testimony or hearsay, nor are they influenced by the perspectives of history and the "government conspiracy craze." I urge anyone who is interested in American history, government and/or politics to read this book. It's well-written, not difficult to read, and interesting. Lane presents his information in a scholarly and non-inflammatory manner, even though his conclusions are a powerful indictment of some of the most respected figures in our history. I guarantee that Rush to Judgment will raise many questions in your mind.

Admittedly, it has been a long time since I last read "Rush to Judgment", but after all these years I consider it to be the benchmark of all the books and therefore writers who have dared to challenge the official findings of the JFK assassination. Ironically, this was the first book of any sort I read on the assassination and I found Mark Lane's style of writing so spellbinding that I was instantly cast into the role of an investigator myself. Many, many books, magazines, movies and videos later, I still come back to my very battered copy of "Rush to Judgment" whenever I want to get back to basics and put things in perspective. Lane's thorough investigation all those years ago has stood the test of time and while more in-depth analyses of certain aspects of the assassination have since come forth, this book still remains, to my mind, the best overall search for the truth. Thanks, Mark Lane, your book will always remain one of the masterpieces.

Mark Lane asked a simple question well over 30 years ago: how can a man who was never tried for a murder, a man who was himself murdered just days after the crime in question took place, a man who never had a chance to present his defense -- how can that man be declared a killer for all eternity? I have never understood how the conventional wisdom assumes that the right and proper position is to presume the man guilty when he was never and could never be accorded anything resembling due process. Once he was killed while in custody of law enforcement, it would seem right and proper under our system to presume the man's innocence -- or at least to leave the matter an open question. But for these past decades, the "proper" position, the "serious" position has been to simply say that John F. Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. That no court of law ever adjudicated the matter of his guilt or innocence seems irrelevent to many. To suggest anything else, to suggest that reasonable doubt exists because the man never had a fair hearing and that the man was never convicted of anything, is to invite being labeled "a kook" or a "conspiracy theorist" or some other equally disturbing pejorative. I have enough respect for our system to tell future generations that the President's killer, whoever he was, was never tried and convicted. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Maybe this book will not tell who pulled the trigger. But Mark Lane shows two very important things. First, Oswald COULDN'T have been involved in the assassination of President JFK. Secondly, he shows that there were more people who participated in the assassination of Pres JFK.

This book has the historical consequence that the Warren Commission can't be trusted. As a reader of the Warren Commission Volumes, I testify to the fact that that investigation was a joke. Mark Lane shows conclusively, the failure of investigating who the real murderers were, and their failure in explaining why Oswald was the "murderer".

The facts were obvious, the absurdity of the Warren Report were flaglanty flaunted, yet many people still never got the truth of JFK's murder. Mark Lane does not offer any final conclusions. He only offers more than enough evidence for two claims; 1.) that if Oswald killed JFK, he couldn't have done so alone, and 2.) the Warren Commission was a scam, dedicated to finding only Oswald's guilt, more concerned with "healing an ailing nation" than with presenting the facts.

As a lawyer, Lane is well-versed in the procedures of court. He presents Oswald's case and the Commission's case with more evidence than you can shake a stick at. It would be difficult to fault Lane for telling it like it is, and it would be even harder to refute his claims. Lane was the man who busted the conspiracy wide open, and while making no deffinite judgments on exactly who perpetrated the conspiracy, he does make a solid case that there was one.

LAne was personally involved with the case, and this works to his advantage in that he had access to a lot of facts. Unfortunately, he has also suffered the attacks of the media, and thus at times becomes a tad defensive. However, this bias is hardly noticeable and in no way detracts from the evidence.

So I guess Oswald was innocent and the Warren Commission either lied or didn't look hard enough. Oh, and if you're going to read this be sure to check out other books on the Kennedy assassination. Lane's a good start, though.

A lot of people have spent years of their lives trying to discredit Lane.

The fact remains that in open debate on this topic he is unsurpassed and cannot be challenged.

The fact that Lane attempted to represent Oswald's interests to the commission should not detract from this piece of work.

Admittedly it is a defence's brief and does not consider that some of the commission's assertions may be correct, this is perhaps the only flaw of the book.

That aside, without giving anything away it is an exceptional work, easy to follow and well written and should be considered the first stop for any would-be commission critic.

The facts don't appear dated even though this book was originally published in 1966, although seasoned Kennedy killing followers may feel that they have already covered a lot of the ground already.

This book is a must have.

For readers who are not familiar at all with the 40 years of the JFK assassination debate, Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" is probably, in my view, the second book to read. The first would be the Warren Commission Report. As this is an 888-page tome, designed to appear to be "thorough" or "exhaustive" in its research, I would suggest, if the reader has acquired the technique of skimming, to quickly go through this book to locate its major ideas. You will then find out how good a job you've done by carefully reading RTJ. Then go back to the WCR, keeping the objections and questions of Mark Lane in mind. After a careful reading of the WCR, the reader will then be in a position to understand, unlike the reader from Maryland, why some people have a problem with the WCR.
By all means read Posner's "Case Closed". It's probably the best apology for the WCR on the market. But be sure to find the Harrison Livingstone book (can't remember the title) which devotes a whole chapter to a discussion of Posner's book, and follow that with Harold Weisberg's "Case Open", which devotes the whole book to debunking Posner. But there are many serious researchers who have problems with Posner.
There are at least three 1960's books, all eminently readable, whose reason for being is simply to point out to the person with an open mind and average intelligence that the WCR, as it stands, can't possibly be the truth behind the Kennedy assassination. To attack them for being something other than they were meant to be strikes me as highly irrational. As Mark Lane points out, the WCR is really a brief for the prosecution. If Mark Lane had been allowed to be Lee Harvey Oswald's lawyer, there would have been no need for his book.
For those who can stomach the truth, you might also want to read Sylvia Meagher's "Accessories After the Fact" and Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash" series.
If you are like the reader from Maryland, stick with your Posner.

When I interviewed Mr. Lane for my TV show,(over two hours) I got a chance to see an American Hero up close.

It was from this book that all the original questions about the Warren Report were rasied, an upon these facts that JKF the film leaned heavily.

This book should be read by every American.

New York lawyer, Mark Lane, wrote this book as a defense brief, of sorts, for Lee Harvey Oswald. His book, "Rush to Judgment", a classic in the JFK assassination investigation, shows how Americans were lulled by the Warren Commission into believing in the "Lone Nut" theory. Lane did what the Commission didn't: that is, to take seriously those people who went against the Commission's thesis statement.

Lane painstakingly re-interviewed those witnesses, and interviewed other witnesses who were not called to testify before the Commission. On this basis, Lane leads us, with great authority, to his conclusion that the Warren Report is, at best, a seriously flawed document, and that there is a great deal of evidence to prove that more than one shooter participated in the murder John F. Kennedy. It is a disturbing conclusion that still reverberates today.

And, as other reviewers have advised, it is a good idea to pick up Lane's video documentary of the same title.

I first heard of Mark Lane (ML) in 1961 when he revealed that the Republican Speaker of the NY Assembly was part owner of a firm that could get the contract to build "fallout shelters" in NY state. The bill was defeated, and Mark Lane was later dropped from his Democratic Party office. When ML read the news report of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt, he wrote an article that noted the contradictions. ML was then asked to be Oswald's lawyer before the Warren Commission. ML continued his investigation into the Warren Report; this book is his critique. ML gave lectures on his findings. David S Lifton was in the audience one day. DSL began to investigate the Warren Report and other articles. He then wrote "Best Evidence", the first book to point to "alterations of the wounds" to cover up the shootings from the front.

The Introduction by Hugh Trevor-Roper says the Warren Commission's function was to pass judgment on the facts given to it. They depended on the FBI, the Secret Service, and the police; did the latter reach a conclusion that was seconded by the Warren Commission? [The book "Act of Treason" by Mark North presents a final judgment and resolution of the JFK Assassination.] Why didn't the Warren Commission have a Devil's Advocate to represent the interests of the accused? The assumption that Oswald acted alone was take for granted: the fix was in. The Warren Report must be judged by the validity of its arguments. Many have found defects in it. HTR says "a pattern was made to emerge out of the evidence .. and seemed to subordinate the evidence to it" (p.10). One of the most important questions is: how did Patrolman Tippit know to stop Oswald? Evidence which seems solid at first fades away like a mirage when it is investigated (p.11). HTR says the Warren Report is NOT a faithful summary of the evidence. There is also evidence that was not presented to the Commission, but should not be rejected out of hand. The Warren Report has a whole series of conclusions based on carefully selected evidence, and ignored evidence that did not support their conclusion. One Commission lawyer said that no court could legally have found Oswald guilty. [Did the quick killing of Oswald point to a wider conspiracy?] The experienced doctors at Parkland Hospital said the wounds came from the front, and so did most of the onlookers there. This circumstantial evidence is more reliable than a "magic bullet" or other planted evidence.

If there is a lack of confidence in the evidence, and the Commission's handling of it, then was the Commission deceived or were they dishonest? Some might claim that the Commission of public figures and professional lawyers could not conspire to cover up a crime. [But isn't all that part of their daily life? See Watergate.] HTR says it could arise from prejudging a case before all the evidence has been seen. This is a very common psychological fact. HTR says the quantity of evidence presented in such a short period of time prevented any objective examination. The Commission accepted the foregone conclusion before they were given the evidence. Page 18 lists many unanswered questions. After forty years only one thing is certain. The conspiracy that killed JFK got away with it.

This 1966 book lacks the photographs that became available many years later. This pioneering book is still a classic critique after forty years. Mark Lane was hired by Lee Harvey Oswald's mother to defend LHO before the Warren Commission. These are ML's comments on the Warren Report.

Chapter 1 tells of the suspicious activity that occurred in the parking lot overlooking Elm St. Chapter 2 asks where the shots came from. 58 of the 90 witnesses questioned said the shots came from the grassy knoll. The actions at the time speak louder than anything said in the following weeks. Chapter 3 says JFK was hit first by a bullet in the throat, an entry wound; JFK had a massive wound in the rear portion of his skull. "Skull matter" was found on the south side of Elm Street; this is consistent with a bullet fired from the north. The police officers to the left of the limousine were spattered, consistent with a bullet fired from the right front. The Zapruder film shows Governor Connally shot from the back about 1.30 seconds after JFK's first wound. This suggests a second shooter.

Chapter 4 is on "The Magic Bullet" which allegedly hit JFK, then struck Governor Connally in his rib and wrist, yet remained in pristine condition. Chapter 5 wonders why a description of Oswald was broadcast at 12:45 pm when he wasn't charged with shooting JFK until the next morning. Oswald wasn't the only absent employee. Chapter 6 tells of the testimony from the 3 men on the fifth floor, and how it was changed for the Commission. Chapter 7 notes the testimony of the other witnesses: the shots sounded like they came from west of the School Book Depositary. None of these witnesses were called before the Commission! Chapter 8 discusses the 7.65 mm Mauser discovered on the sixth floor at 1:22 pm. The next day the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano was substituted for it! Chapter 9 discusses the tests of the alleged assassin's weapon. None of the experts who fired the weapon could hit the head or neck of the target.

Chapter 10 tells of the fictitious name "A J Hidell" used by Oswald. "Hidell" was the nickname of a Marine who served with Oswald and lived in New Orleans. Who else was entitled to receive mail at that post office box? Chapter 11 shows how the Commission created a story against the eyewitness testimony. Chapter 12 tells how a paraffin test cleared Oswald from firing a rifle that day! The freshly painted boards would give a positive response from both hands. Chapter 13 notes the 43 minutes from leaving the Depository to the shooting of Officer Tippit. No one saw Oswald leave the building. ML analyzes the other problems with the Commission's story. There are discrepancies between the different eyewitnesses stories.

Chapter 14 discusses the eyewitnesses to the shooting of Officer Tippit. One testimony "was inconsistent with the known facts or the Commission's conclusions or both". Chapter 15 says the two other witnesses who saw the killing who saw the killing did not identify Oswald. One who saw two men was warned not to talk - or she might be killed. The four bullets found in Tippet's body could not be matched to Oswald's revolver. There was a problem identifying the four shells. The found jacket had a laundry tag but could not be traced! Chapter 16 tells of the murder of Oswald while in police custody. There were warnings about Oswald's safety, and requests to move Oswald in secret on Saturday, but the Dallas PD held to the announce schedule.

The remaining chapters deal with Jack Ruby, the Oswalds, and the Commission. Later books had more of the facts gained from the Congressional Investigation. This remains one of the first books to critique the Warren Report.

In 1974 George O'Toole published "The Assassination Tapes" which provided objective evidence that LH Oswald was not guilty. Soon Congress reopened the Investigation and came up with a rebuttal of the Warren Commission. Mark North's book "Act of Treason" is one of the best and last explanations of the conspiracy to kill JFK. David Wrone's "The Zapruder Film" explains why LHO was in the front of the building when the shots were fired; movies showed no one at the 6th floor SE window. Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of killing JFK, he wasn't even indicted. Claims of his guilt are another Media Hoax put forward to obscure the fact that the powerful conspirators got away with it.