Plausible Denial by Mark Lane

Introduction
The intro was written by Fletcher Prouty. He believes that there was a conspiracy and that the media is not able, even to this day, discuss the truth. He praises Mark Lane and his efforts. A covert action is any action that can later be plausibly denied.

Prologue: Spy Trials
This book is about the defamation case that Howard Hunt brought against Spotlight magazine and its parent company Liberty Lobby. Victor Marchetti wrote an article that said that Hunt was implicated in the Kennedy assassination. Hunt sued for defamation. Sturgis testified on February 3, 1978 that he was involved in CIA attempts to assassinate Castro and the presidents of Panama and Guatemala. He says he was also approached by an agent to perform domestic assassinations. He denied ever being an employee of the CIA. Newton Miler said Sturgis was not an employee of the CIA and he had never heard of Operation 40, a CIA plan to use Cubans as assassins. Helms said that Sturgis was a contracted employee of the CIA.

The trial would allow many people who the Warren Commission ignored to testify.

Book 1: Suspension of Certainty
I knock at the door
Lane worked pro bono in his law practice. A corporation sponsored him. He recognized from his practice that the accused could be convicted long before he ever stepped in court due to public opinion and media attention. He applied this wisdom to Lee Harvey Oswald. He was pro-Castro, pro-Russia and anti-American. JFK was young, vibrant and charismatic.

The official story, at first, was that Kennedy’s throat wounds were frontal not exit wounds. Ruby worked for the FBI in Dallas (p. 16). Jean Hill coined the term “grassy knoll” (p.17). All the doctors at Parkland stated that the throat wound was an entrance wound. The grassy knoll was in front of Kennedy. The FBI refused to record their interviews with Oswald and no transcript exists (p.18). Lane wrote his thesis that Oswald would never get a fair trial under these conditions (in addition to the fact that he was dead by now).

Lane published this thesis in the National Guardian, a left-wing publication. It sold like crazy but only the New York Times reported on it. It was popular over seas as well.

Marguerite Oswald contacted Lane. She wanted Lee to get a fair shake. He agreed if he would be allowed to condemn Oswald, should his investigation lead him to that conclusion. She agreed.

The WC refused to allow Lane to defend Oswald in their hearings. The WC set up 6 panels. They were: 1. Oswald’s background; 2. his time in the USMC and USSR; 3. his activities on November 22; 4. Ruby’s background; 5. how Ruby entered into the police garage and 6. the effectiveness of the SS. Lane said there should be a 7th panel: who killed JFK.
Lane formed the Citizens Committee of Inquiry (CCI) in NYC. After the WR was released, Lane studied it and released Rush to Judgment. He had difficulty getting it published in the U.S. Overseas it was a success. When it was published in America, it was the best-selling hardcover and later the best-selling paperback of its respective years.

Garrison’s case against Clay Shaw took place and Shaw was acquitted. Lane had information that (obtained much later) that Shaw was a CIA agent.

Tip O’Neill lambasted Lane for his efforts. Then he wrote his memoirs and stated that Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers changed their stories to the FBI. Powers and O’Donnell were top Kennedy aides.

Lane got Richard Sprague to be the chairman of the HSCA. Sprague said he would examine all evidence and witnesses, including Jacqueline Onassis, President Ford and John Connally. The media began to blast Sprague.

DeMohrenschildt was Oswald’s CIA handler and a Nazi sympathizer (p. 32). Fonzi went to see him but DeMohrenschildt was murdered. Oswald’s relationship with the intelligence community was the most pressing question but the intelligence community wouldn’t buckle; Congress refused to budge the CIA/FBI et al.

Tannenbaum was forced out. He was replaced by Robert Blakely. Blakely defended Moe Dalitz, an underworld figure who stole $57 million in teamsters’ pensions. The mob and the intelligence community were coconspirators in plans to kill Castro. He didn’t subpoena a single document from the CIA or FBI. Gaeton Fonzi unearthed the Spanish Document. Blakely sent it to the CIA. The HSCA had cleared the intelligence community of guilt while admitting that there was a high probability of a conspiracy to kill JFK.

The CIA had released a few documents through FOIA that pertained to LHO’s time in Mexico. Until the Hunt case, the American public was disinterested.

Book 2: Mexico City
Presumed Guilty
Earl Warren campaigned to have Japanese Americans interned during WWII. He was a political opponent of Upton Sinclair and a campaigner for Herbert Hoover. He ran for VP under Dewey against Truman in ’48. Allen Dulles served as speechwriter in that campaign on the condition that he would become the head of the CIA. This promise was fulfilled by Eisenhower in ’52. Incidentally, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State was John Dulles, Allen’s brother. In ’52 Warren threw in his support for Eisenhower in exchange for a seat on the Supreme Court. Eisenhower narrowly defeated Sen. Robert Taft (related to Howard Taft? Both Republicans…). Following Warren’s support, Eisenhower won.

LBJ sent his solicitor general, Archibald Cox, along with Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach to get Warren to chair what would become the Warren Commission. He agreed to do what was best for the country and not let legal niceties or high moral principles deflect him. If the CIA had given LBJ a psychological profile of Warren, LBJ would have found that Warren was the type to do to what he thought was in the best interests of the country, even if it was morally reprehensible (such as the internment of Japanese Americans). Warren would also vehemently defend his actions after the fact. Getting him appointed to this chair was a perfect choice.

Since Oswald had already been executed for the crime, it was easy for the WC to arrive at his guilt. He went to Mexico in the weeks preceding the assassination. He went there to talk to the Soviets and the Cubans. This gave Oswald a “communist” connection.

The conservatives on the WC believe Oswald went to Mexico to talk to the Soviets, in order to hammer out the details of the assassination. Gerald Ford is one such conservative. Incidentally, Ford led the charge to impeach Warren years earlier. Ford also fed the WC’s reports to the FBI, to a Cartha D. DeLoach, the secretary to the J. Edgar Hoover. Ford told the FBI which WC members needed FBI information in order to conform their opinions to that of the FBI. DeLoach told Ford that Warren used syndicated columnist Drew Pearson to get his information out.

Oswald also tried to get into Cuba. His purpose was to plan his escape after he committed the crime in Dallas.

The WC’s liberals included Warren himself. He put leading liberals on as counsels. They included J. Lee Rankin and Norman Redlich. The liberals concluded, given the same evidence, that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. They were more influenced by the CIA’s profile of Lee Harvey Oswald as being a loner with delusions of grandeur.

LBJ was neither a liberal nor a conservative. He changed his stance on the JFK killing in the media, long after leaving office.

Proof of Oswald going to the Cuban embassy comes from Señora Silvia Duran. Proof he had been with the Soviets came from CIA agents in Mexico. The WC says that it is satisfied with these conclusions and other supporting information that is top secret and can’t be published. The CIA had photographed Oswald going into the Soviet Embassy. He met with Valeriy V. Kostikov. He was a KGB member and was connected with the 13th or liquid affairs’ department: assassinations and sabotage. The CIA also bugged Oswald’s conversations there. He asked for Kostikov by name. He also asked if he had any messages, indicating that he had a relationship with the Russian intelligence community. If Oswald acted alone, what was the role of the Russians?

The Warren Commission was made up of busy people. Earl Warren was chief justice. Ford and Boggs were important Congressmen. Sherman and Cooper were leaders in the Senate. All were busy except Allan Dulles who was fired by Kennedy. He did all the investigating for the WC.

LBJ told Warren, according to an internal memo written by WC lawyer Marvin Eisenberg, rumors abroad surrounding the findings of the WR could lead to the deaths of 40 million people. This would result in the WC coming to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had no accomplices, least of all Russian accomplices (or Cuban for that matter).

The Facts
The CIA planned the JFK assassination. They framed Lee Harvey Oswald because he was an innocent man (and thus, the CIA wouldn’t get blamed) and because he had connections with the FBI. This would mean that J. Edgar Hoover would seal off any investigation that would embarrass his organization.

The FBI Connection
The Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr, stated that Oswald was an FBI agent. Orest Pena, an FBI informant, ran some rackets in New Orleans. He provided secret lodgings for CIA Cubans who were being trained at Lake Pontchartrain. He told Lane that he knew Oswald and that Oswald worked for the FBI. The Lake Pontchartrain Cubans were not used for the Bay of Pigs but were used for Operation Mongoose. Special Agent James Hosty told a House subcommittee that the FBI had contacted Oswald prior to the assassination. Three days before, Oswald handed Hosty a note. He was ordered to flush it down the toilet. He claims the note was a warning from Oswald to leave him alone. In Oswald’s notebook he had written Hosty’s license plate number and telephone number. The notebook given to the WC by the FBI had one page withheld: this page.

The Warren Commission becomes Suspicious
The WC was not satisfied with the CIA’s assurance of Oswald being in Mexico. The documents that the CIA released were sanitized. Helms said the actual documents were unintelligible to the public because they used code words and digraphs. The WC still didn’t have any evidence that Oswald was in Mexico. The CIA refused to release its cables. Instead it released a statement concerning Senora Duran. This cable had no code words or digraphs. It is questionable but the WC accepted it.

Silencing Silvia Duran
Silvia Duran was a Mexican born national who worked for the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. Her predecessor died in an automobile accident. She testified in a way the CIA didn’t like and she was arrested. She was later arrested a second time. The CIA director sent a cable to the CIA office in Mexico saying the arrest of Duran is extremely serious matter. It also suggests that the CIA had control over the Mexican police. She was never called to be a witness to the WC nor by anyone associated with the commission.

The Photograph
The CIA claims that it set up shop in Mexico next to the Soviet embassy, that it had an army of agents and technicians roaming around and that it had state-of-the-art espionage equipment to photograph and tap the Soviets. They had a photo of Oswald entering the Soviet embassy. The CIA gave the photo to the FBI just hours before the assassination. FBI agent Bardwell D. Odum showed the photo to Marguerite Oswald. She said she didn’t know the man. After Lee Harvey Oswald was dead, she said the man was Jack Ruby. It was not Ruby but this caused consternation with the WC. The CIA submitted the photo without any background to FBI agent James Malley and he said the photo was not Ruby (which is certainly true. The picture looks nothing like Jack Ruby). The WC was satisfied but never asked why the picture ever turned up in the first place…

The Tape Recording
A tape recording of someone calling the Soviet Embassy, calling himself Lee Harvey Oswald and asking if he had any messages was submitted by the CIA to the public.
J. Edgar Hoover released an inquiry into the JFK assassination and background information regarding Lee Harvey Oswald. This was completed the day after the murder but was never made available to the WC. It says that the CIA conspired to establish that Oswald had visited the Soviet Embassy and that there is no evidence he actually visited it. Those FBI agents who interrogated Oswald and then heard the tape recording and saw the photo said they were of the opinion that this was not Lee Harvey Oswald nor was it is voice that was recorded. This means that the CIA created the evidence 7 weeks before JFK was killed. The implication made by Lane is that the CIA was an accomplice before the fact.

The Bus Ticket
Oswald’s bus tickets to Mexico were found in a Spanish magazine. These bus tickets silenced the critics who said there was no credible evidence that Oswald went to Mexico. Marina stated that Oswald did not go to Mexico as well, but the tickets were found in Marina’s hotel room. Senators Cooper and Russell doubted the official story of the CIA. Marina suddenly found the bus stubs. Priscilla Johnson explained to Marina their significance. Johnson was a distinguished journalist who was with Marina at the time. Russell still didn’t buy it completely—the tickets were found a little too coincidently. Before Johnson had entered the room, the FBI had searched it twice and came up with nothing; Johnson comes to minister to Marina and they appear. (The palm print on the rifle: the FBI found nothing; it went to the Dallas PD and the palm print appears). She was the 2nd suspect in the assassination as far as the FBI was concerned (according to their secret documents).

While Marina was held incommunicado, many lawyers and reporters asked to talk with her but they were all rebuffed. Then Johnson asks and is allowed. She met Oswald in Russia in ’59. Oswald was the 1st former marine that was a defector. But why was Johnson there? Her name appears in Oswald’s personal notebook. She appears to have CIA connection (p. 69). After Oswald was dead, she wrote that Oswald was angry at everything American. She was married to George McMillan. He wrote a book that said James Earl Ray was the lone assassin of MLK.

In 1967 Johnson became openly involved in the CIA. She got Svetlana Alliluyeva, Joseph Stalin’s daughter, to defect to the U.S. Alliluyeva was kept in the same home as Johnson. She also translated Svetlana’s book and had it published in a CIA friendly publisher. Both Svetlana and Marina were “cared for” by Johnson. Both Oswald and Svetlana were interviewed in Moscow before coming to the U.S. How fortunate for the CIA that she was available when the time for evidence that Oswald had been to Mexico was needed.

Silencing the Critics
The CIA was concerned about the polls which showed fewer Americans believed the WR. Due to the cast that comprised the WC, such polls impugned the integrity of the U.S. government as a whole. To silence the critics the CIA started a book review propaganda campaign. Rush to Judgment didn’t have any errors in it, according to the CIA. To attack such works, the “reviewers” would claim they read the reviewed work and found it inferior to the official report.

The CIA review of his book was centered on his treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico.

The Confession
Donald Freed is a friend of Lane’s. He organized a conference at USC for the U.S. intelligence community and its critics to meet. In the panel were Lane, Ellsberg and John Gerassi, all critics. On the other side were William Colby, former DCI, David Atlee Phillips and Ray Cline, former deputy DCI’s.

Lane tore into Phillips, who was the CIA’s head of the Western Hemisphere. Phillips was head of the Mexico station when Oswald was supposedly there. Lane made assertions that the CIA destroyed the tape of Lee Harvey Oswald talking to the Soviet Embassy, not because it was CIA policy but because they were covering up. No CIA policy could be produced. After Lane’s indictment of Phillips, Phillips confessed that Oswald was not in Mexico. This panel discussion was taped and Lane has the proof. Phillips went on to say that he is sure that the CIA did not have anything to do with the JFK killing, however.

Book 3: Motive
Why did the CIA Murder the President?
If the CIA thought that the defense of their country would be served by killing Kennedy, they would rationalize his assassination. Kennedy had fired Allen Dulles, Charles Cabell, and Richard Bissell after the Bay of Pigs. This rocked the hierarchy at the CIA. Furthermore, he refused to invade Cuba on 2 occasions. He allowed the Berlin Wall to be built with escalation with the USSR. He made a secret deal with the Russians following the Cuban Missile Crisis. He wrote NSAM to withdraw all Americans (not just troops but CIA as well) from Vietnam by ’65. He got test ban treaty with Russia. He wanted to end the Cold War in a second term. He signed NSAM 55, 56 and 57 which ended the reign of the CIA. They were not allowed to use any weapon more powerful than a hand gun. They were not allowed to wage covert war anymore. If the CIA viewed these items as being compromises to national security they justify killing Kennedy, regardless of the immorality of the act.

Kennedy’s critics, including Howard Hunt, wrote books and essays blaming Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs and for the ascendancy of communism in Southeast Asia, Berlin and Cuba.

Operation Mongoose was a Castro-assassination plan developed by the CIA. These plans included removing his beard, poisoning him with untraceable chemicals and blowing him up with a bomb that looked like a seashell. McNamara’s liaison to the CIA was General Edward G. Lansdale (General Y in JFK). He wanted to wage a huge war to oust Castro from Cuba. Kennedy wanted to bide his time until he could get a popular mandate (a 2nd term with a bigger margin of victory) so that he could deal with J. Edgar Hoover and the CIA more effectively. Everything was in place and he would certainly have defeated Goldwater in ’64 (Johnson did!). The CIA couldn’t allow this to happen so they conspired to remove him. They had the police and the mayor in their pockets in Dallas…

Colonel Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X in JFK) was in charge of clandestine military support for the CIA. He confirms that Kennedy wanted the CIA dismantled and was going to do it after the ’64 election. Prouty was the man who would deliver the NSAM’s to the joint chiefs. The joint chiefs and the rest of the military was being ordered to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces” by Kennedy.

In addition to Kennedy’s refusal to escalate the aforementioned items, O’Donnell said that Laos was another example of Kennedy the Dove. Prouty confirms that Kennedy wanted all Americans including the CIA out of Vietnam. The CIA had been there since ’45 and they were in despair!

Prouty was sent to the South Pole on November 10, 1963. He wouldn’t return until after the assassination. He had lunch with Lane in ’91. He showed Lane a photo that was taken in Dallas on November 22, 1963. It was of General Lansdale.

The Kennedy’s were discussing bringing Cuba back into the community of nations. They had sent some envoys there to discuss this. Cuba’s big concern was that the U.S. would try to overthrow Castro and reconstitute its domination over Cuba’s resources, ala the Batista days. They employed Jean Daniel, a French journalist, to be their go-between with Cuba. Daniel was with Castro when Kennedy was killed. Castro was impressed with the American offer and wanted out of his current dependence with the Soviet bloc. He said that the death of Kennedy was “bad news.” Daniel asked Castro about working with LBJ but Castro was not convinced of LBJ’s commitment like he was of JFK’s.

The CIA won, especially considering a former DCI has since been elected President. The shah of Iran was also jubilant over Kennedy’s death. When Kennedy would ask him to address the social needs of his country, the shah would say that the communists were the real problem, ingratiating himself with the capital-fascists.

Nixon had ties with the Kennedy assassination too. He told Haldeman that Hunt and the Cubans would open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again. Hunt was threatening to reveal information that the CIA was implicated in the Kennedy assassination.

Jack Anderson reported in ’77 that the CIA was controlling opium rings and bringing the drugs into the U.S. Later the CIA was in charge of narcotics intelligence. This was an irony that Anderson reported on.

The CIA seemed impervious after JFK’s death, able to easily deflect the weak media attention it received. That is, until Victor Marchetti wrote his article for Spotlight magazine.

Book 4: Discovery
Haviv Schieber
Lane met with Schieber. Schieber told him about Carto and his Liberty Lobby. Liberty Lobby was going out of business because Hunt had sued them for $650,000 and won. The defamation case was centered around an article written by CIA maverick Victor Marchetti. The Liberty Lobby was a right-wing magazine that tried to publish pro-Palestinian news and give Yassir Arafat a voice in Western media. He convinced Lane to meet with Carto and discuss the case. Lane agreed.

Willis Carto
Carto said he never spent any time in his journalist career pursuing Kennedy and the assassination until approached by Victor Marchetti. Carto knew Marchetti and was interested in him since his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence had been published. Books on the CIA had to be sent to Langley for pre-publication approval. The result was that some of Marchetti’s work was censored. This intrigued Carto as it meant that the work of Marchetti was true. The CIA couldn’t argue that they needed to censor a book in the interests of national security that was fantasy.

One example of the CIA’s projects from Marchetti deals with them surgically putting espionage equipment into cats. The cat would have an antenna in its tail and it could innocuously roam a cocktail party.

Carto has been labeled an anti-Semite and a fascist by people like William F. Buckley. Buckley has lobbied against allowing African Americans the right to vote, especially in regions where they outnumber the whites, as whites are the master race. But Buckley is a member of society and can get away with this. Phillips, the CIA’s Mexico City station head, has said that a William Buckley was a member of the agency. Lane beat Buckley in a court case in D.C.

Lane agreed to take Carto’s case but only if he could use the strategy of proving Hunt’s complicity in the Kennedy assassination rather than proving that Spotlight wrote the article with malice. Carto agreed.

Victor Marchetti
Marchetti is the essential witness in this case because he wrote the article. He refused to testify in the first trial and thus, Liberty Lobby lost.

The Marchetti article was entitled CIA to admit Hunt involvement in Kennedy slaying, dated August 15, 1978. It describes a “hangout”. A hangout is spy jargon for a useless cover that the CIA had employed but now must abandon. The public is given some information about the effort but the crux is still guarded. The public is happy to have the new information and never pursues the matter further. It suggests the Church Committee was hoodwinked by a hangout in ’76 when the CIA would not release information that it didn’t want to release.

The article predicted (wrongly) that the CIA would hang Hunt out to dry because he had blackmailed Nixon and the CIA during Watergate. He’s vulnerable because of his wife’s mysterious death and the notion that she was leaving him and turning him in. The article states the CIA will admit Hunt participated in the conspiracy against Kennedy and that there were 3 gunmen (all wrong!).

The article quotes A.J. Weberman’s book about the bums on the grassy knoll. No record of their arrest exists. One of them was Hunt, another was Frank Sturgis. Hunt sued but Weberman was able to destroy all of Hunt’s conflicting alibis. Hunt can be tied to Gerry Patrick Hemming. He, along with Oswald, has been identified by Marita Lorenz. Hemming was also Oswald’s Marine sergeant in Atsugi, Japan. This is where the CIA had its U2 missions.

All these individuals have been disgraced and are expendable. The intelligence community will deny any ties and state that these men are renegades, acting on their own. Former Presidents would then be implicated (Johnson, Nixon and Ford) for aiding in the cover-up. Carter will get the credit for seeking the truth (all wrong).

Marchetti’s notes talked referred to a “J.A.” and a “B.C.” Lane asked if J.A. was James Angleton; Marchetti would not confirm nor deny. Lane asked if B.C. was William Corson. Lane also would not confirm nor deny. Lane was correct as Marchetti later did confirm this. Marchetti was not going to be forthcoming with Lane. His notes also referred to an “A.J” who was A.J. Weberman. Weberman had coauthored a book that a photo taken shortly after the assassination captured Hunt on the grassy knoll. This was not true—the photo was not of Hunt. Hunt sued Weberman and called Marchetti as his witness. Marchetti said that the CIA told him to stonewall this effort, to not support Hunt but to support Weberman.

Marchetti claims that he heard about a memo that stated the things his article said. He heard about it from Corson. Corson denied this, of course but Marchetti agreed to testify this time. Corson did not recall anything pertinent. Marchetti claimed that Corson (credible) had been the source and that Weberman (non-credible) had filled in some details. Corson got confirmation from Angleton. Marchetti then claimed that Weberman was his original source after all and Corson agreed. Corson then contacted Angleton and he too agreed. Corson denied everything, leaving Lane in a pickle. Weberman got the information from Fonzi who got it from Ed Lopez who saw the document personally. The case was in a dismal state.

The Closing Argument
Lane needed to find supporting evidence as to what Marchetti claims in his article. He started by assuming that when Marchetti was speaking about CIA matters and not making predictions that he had been truthful. Corson was reliable but Weberman was not.

Lane had an ace up his sleeve: he had interviewed Marita Lopez years earlier and had tape recorded her voice.

Then Lane learned that an article had been published in the Sunday News Journal on August 20, 1978. This article reported that a CIA memo said that Hunt was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. It was written by Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers. Trento was an employee of CNN. The article was entitled Was Howard Hunt in Dallas the Day JFK Died? It states that a CIA memo puts him in Dallas that day. It said he was station chief of the CIA base in Mexico City just weeks prior to the Kennedy assassination. The memo, it says, is in the hands of the HSCA (was it?). The memo was initialed by Helms and Angleton. Hunt’s presence in Dallas was a fact that the CIA needed to hide; Helms and Angleton knew that information was damaging. Hunt denies everything the memo says.

Helms was convicted of having a faulty memory in regards to the ITT’s involvement in Chile. (Is this the same ITT scandal that Haldeman mentioned?) Technicians did some acoustic tests and determined that there were 4 shots that day. Some CIA investigators have theorized that Hunt was in Dallas to murder Lee Harvey Oswald! They also think that Helms or Angleton are moles.

This article, unlike the Spotlight article, did not predict events. It did not rely on A.J. Weberman. It also had a quotation from Hunt. But there were some similarities. Both referred to a secret CIA memo from 1966; both were released within a week of each other.

Lane asked Marchetti if he had met with Trento. Marchetti was amazed that such a similar story was published 6 days after his article was published. He said he knew of Trento but never met him. He said that there was no coordination between the 2 articles. Two articles written about a CIA memo that was 12 years old, written with a week of each other, both written by authors who knew Corson and who were very familiar with the intelligence community: was this a coincidence or a ploy?

Corson said he knew nothing about a Helms-Angleton memo. Lane decided to interview Trento. Trento did not like Liberty Lobby and was not forthcoming with Mark Lane. Lane implored him to talk, stating that the politics of Liberty Lobby were irrelevant. Trento was not impressed. Lane decided to get Trento to talk at a deposition.

Depositions
Depositions are alternatives to live court appearances. Due to geographic constraints, a witness can be deposed by both sides and make a statement. That statement is then read to the jury. Both sides ask questions, make objections and conduct all other legal subtleties. The rules for relevance and discovery are broad in depositions; fishing expeditions are allowed (and not necessarily discouraged).

Joseph Trento
If Marchetti had not been Trento’s source, then it was corroborative. Trento was not going to reveal any of his sources within or outside the agency; he would not reveal the numbers or their titles nor would he state whether a particular person was a source. Lane got Trento to testify that each paragraph of his article were, to his knowledge, were true. Trento said he interviewed Hunt. A member of the HSCA had told Trento that given the memo in combination with what the committee already had put a dent in the WR. Trento said that while the WC was investigating the assassination, Angleton met regularly with Dulles, the WC member who did most (all?) of its investigation. Angleton met with Dulles to plan other assassinations during this time, according to Trento (p. 165).

Lane asked if Trento knew Corson and Trento said yes. Lane read the sworn statement made by Angleton in the case when Hunt sued A.J. Weberman in the Third Press defamation. Angleton appeared in that deposition with John Seibert, a Justice Department lawyer (defending both Angleton and the CIA). Angleton received a telephone call from Trento after the Weberman book was published. Trento was calling from Bill Corson’s office, said Angleton. Trento had asked him if he had heard from Howard Hunt. Angleton said no. Trento asked a series of disconnected questions and Angleton evaded the interview. Trento said he didn’t recall any of this. This ended Lane’s direct examination of Trento.

Snyder, the lawyer representing Hunt, began his cross examination. Since Trento would not reveal his sources, Snyder decided to impeach Trento’s credentials. He asked if Trento had ever seen this “purported” memorandum. Trento said yes! He said he saw it and recognized Helms and Angleton’s initials because he had read numerous memos with their initials on them before. The best Snyder could do was to grill Trento as to whether the initials were real or forgeries: Trento said they looked real but he wasn’t a documents expert.

On redirect, Lane asked Trento if he believes his story and stands by it even today. Trento said yes. Lane asked if Trento had met Marchetti in August of ’78. Trento said no, they met after Paisley (who?) had disappeared. Paisley’s disappearance was in September of ’78. Lane asked if Marchetti was his source and Trento said he would not answer. Lane said, “if you had not met Marchetti until after September of ’78 and you and Marchetti wrote separate articles in August of ’78, could he be your source?” Trento said, “I hadn’t met Marchetti at the time I wrote the article. Draw your own conclusion.”

This deposition seemed to be independent confirmation that the Marchetti article was genuine.

The First Trial
A stipulation is an item of evidence that both sides agree to that would be time-consuming to reveal in court. In retrials, the stipulations of the 1st trial apply; the appeals are required to abide by those stipulations. In the 1st trial of Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, Liberty Lobby stipulated that they would not try to prove that Hunt was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The plaintiffs agreed but they violated this stipulation numerous times by asking Hunt questions about his whereabouts.
Hunt claimed that the article had adversely affected his familial relationships. His adult children doubted his innocence in the Kennedy killing. Hunt admitted to be the political advisor to the Bay of Pigs invasion. His lawyer claimed no one had seen such a memo. Hunt admitted to being the station chief of Mexico City. Hunt’s lawyers violated direct examination rules by leading him. They also misled the jury by twisting the libel laws around during the deliberation instructions. His alibi, CIA operative Kuzmuk, was not very precise, unable to state when he was with Hunt or the date of Kennedy’s death. The case was won by Hunt; he was awarded $650,000. The case was appealed and an appeal was granted.

E. Howard Hunt
Lane told Hunt’s lawyer that he was going to make a motion to overturn the stipulation. Snyder became livid. Snyder made 2 motions against Lane but they were denied. Lane said he would argue that the plaintiffs could not have a binding stipulation in a case if they violated it repeated in the 1st trial.

Lane met with Hunt. Hunt said the Rockefeller Commission was satisfied with Hunt’s alibi: that he was in D.C. on the day in question. On p.255 of the RC it says that Hunt’s and Sturgis’ whereabouts cannot be determined with certainty, however. Hunt denied ever speaking to Trento. Hunt says he was with his kids on November 22, 1963. {If so, why would they not believe him when he said he was innocent?} Hunt said that the Trento/Powers article was based upon the Marchetti article, that Marchetti was Trento’s source. Hunt said his lawyer dropped his case against A.J. Weberman against his will and he received no money or apology. Hunt agreed that he and Liddy conspired to kill Jack Anderson and had contacted Dr. Gunn on this matter. Dr. Gunn was a CIA agent with experience in efforts to discredit foreign officials. Hunt disagreed with Liddy about the Brookings Institute plan. Marita Lorenz told Lane that he knew Hunt by the code name “Eduardo.” Lane asked what name Hunt went by in the Bay of Pigs planning; he said the Cuban community called him Eduardo.

After the deposition, Hunt’s lawyers told Lane he could have gotten more if he exploited the holes in Hunt’s testimony; Lane said he was waiting for a jury audience.

David Atlee Phillips
Phillips was listed as one of Hunt’s witnesses. Lane wasn’t sure if Hunt and his lawyers knew that Lane had debated with Phillips in a conference. A mysterious “Mr. Smith” was among those at the deposition. He was not a lawyer, not with intelligence and would offer no testimony.

Phillips said he met Hunt in ’54. Lane brought up the debate he had had with Phillips. The lawyers balked and Phillips didn’t respond.

Lane asked if Phillips had seen Hunt in Mexico City. Phillips said he had, sometime between September ’61 and March ’65. Lane asked if he had seen Hunt in Mexico City before November 22, 1963 and Phillips said once or twice. Hunt had told the Rockefeller Commission he had not been in Mexico between ’61 and ’70. Phillips said that Hunt would engage in duplicity in his personal and professional life per CIA policy.

Walter Kuzmuk
Walter Kuzmuk worked and lived near Hunt. He would see Hunt on a regular basis in both his personal and professional life. Kuzmuk could not be relied upon to testify that he had seen Hunt in D.C. on the day of the assassination. Lane decided Kuzmuk was not trustworthy and decided not to call him as a witness.

G. Gordon Liddy
Liddy showed up in Lane’s office in ’84. He said he would answer any questions put to him by Lane and he would not require legal counsel. Liddy was a “Plumber”. He worked for the FBI. He has an extensive criminal record. He worked for Nixon to discredit Nixon’s opponents like Ted Kennedy and Ed Muskie. He rationalized this by saying that Muskie would have been a threat to the U.S. He and Hunt were behind the “screw-the-Democrats-with-prostitutes” scam. Sturgis helped too. He devised the Brookings plan, at Hunt’s request. The cost was too prohibitive. Liddy said that Hunt played a big role in Bay of Pigs. They recruited Cuban exiles for the Fielding operation (Ellsberg’s psychiatrist). Liddy said that Hunt knew these “Cuban assets” and met them only through Hunt. Liddy said he and Hunt had conspired to assassinate Americans as well (Jack Anderson). They discussed car accidents and aspirin roulette. These conversations took place with Dr. Gunn. Liddy said that Hunt would lie to protect the CIA.

Stansfield Turner
Stansfield Turner was former DCI from March ’77 to January ’81. He was a former admiral in the U.S. Navy. He was a witness for Hunt. At the deposition he made a statement that he did not recall ever discussing Hunt at the CIA, the Kennedy assassination, a CIA cover-up or any memo. Snyder then pored over every paragraph of the Marchetti article and Turner said they were not true, to the best of his recollection.

Lane concluded that the article was false or Turner had just lied or Turner was very ignorant about CIA activities before he became DCI. Lane decided that the 3rd conclusion was accurate. He grilled Turner accordingly. Turner didn’t know that Dulles was on the WC, didn’t know or acknowledge Dulles’ role for the WC and so on. He was ignorant of Hunt’s role in the CIA and didn’t know if Hunt was in Dallas in ’63. Lane was satisfied that Turner would not damage his case. Lane intimates that Reagan and Bush delayed the release of the American hostages from Iran.

Richard Helms
Due to Turner’s testimony, the plaintiff needed Helms’ testimony. The plaintiff would have preferred to have Turner and Helms testify in person but this would have caused a media sensation. Helms said that Sturgis was a contract employee. Helms admitted he had met Sturgis before ’79. Helms stated that Clay Shaw was a CIA contact and he testified to this fact in ’79. Lane asked Helms if he had withheld information from Garrison regarding the Clay Shaw case; he said he didn’t remember. He said he didn’t remember helping Shaw either. Lane’s questions about Lee Harvey Oswald and Mexico City were not answered per Helms’ counsel.

Helms asked if the HSCA had produced the memo. Why would he ask that? He had denied it existed…

Book 5: The Issue is Joined
Defamation
Truth in an assertion has little bearing in a defamation case. This case would prove or disprove that the CIA had killed Kennedy.

The Trial
Judge James W. Kehoe would preside. Lane was impressed with Kehoe’s objectivity. There was a motion to dismiss the stipulation regarding Hunt and his role in the assassination. The plaintiff argued the rules of stipulation. The defense argued that the wording of the stipulation in the 1st trial specifically said it was for that trial, not the whole case. The defense won the motion.

The jury selection took place and both sides were happy with the selection.

Hunt was the 1st witness. He served in the Officers Strategic Service or OSS during WWII. He was a press aid for Averell Harriman in Paris, the man who was the European Director of the Marshall Plan. He was recruited by the then-forming CIA. He was station chief in Mexico City in ’50. He was a college grad, won honors in college and the service and was a patriot.

He admitted that he was involved in the Guatemala project—the removal of the Marxist dictator there. He was chief of psychological warfare in that operation. This led to a “bloodless revolt” in ’54. He was a leader in the Bay of Pigs operation. He was upset with the result of that action and with Kennedy. He was mad at Kennedy for blaming Dulles.

He said on the day of the assassination he was in D.C. with his wife and kids. He saw his neighbor Walter Kuzmuk on that day, too. The family stayed glued to the television like the rest of the nation for the next 48 hours. He said he protected Nixon during the Watergate scandal because it was for the good of the country. He said that John Dean had accused, wrongly, of blackmailing the President. Dean was ignorant of the complex issues surrounding the White House. He denied any participation in the Kennedy assassination. Then came the cross examination.

Lane attacked Hunt’s assertion that he had not blackmailed Nixon. He proved Hunt did blackmail him (p.258-260). He attacked Hunt and his participation in the Ellsberg break-in (p. 263-266). He attacked Hunt and his role in the forged documents that implicated Kennedy in the assassination of the president of Vietnam. Hunt admitted to forging these because he believed it to be true but couldn’t find the evidence to support it. Hunt also had trouble remember where he was when he heard the news that JFK was killed. He said he was not in Mexico from ’61 to ’70. He said he was with his neighbors, the Thomas’, along with his kids. He said that he and his wife went shopping at a Chinese grocery store named Wah Ling. This store did not exist in ’63. He said, later, that the name of the place was Tuck Cheong. He said his neighbor and co-worker, Walter Kuzmuk, saw him in D.C. that day. Kuzmuk did testify that he saw Hunt but was not sure which day Kennedy was killed. Kuzmuk and Hunt carpooled, usually. But if they carpooled on that day, why was Hunt with his wife in their family car?

Trento predicted 3 ½ years earlier that all of Hunt’s witnesses would be CIA arranged. Kuzmuk worked there. Hunt said Kuzmuk drove him to work that day but Kuzmuk had previously said he had not. Hunt’s only alibi witnesses at this preceding were not the ones he presented to the HSCA.

Lane impeached Hunt’s testimony where it contradicted the Rockefeller Commission (p. 280-282). The RC says that Hunt and Sturgis’ whereabouts could not be determined on November 22, 1963.

Lane then led Hunt into a minefield he had been laying. The point of the Hunt v. Liberty Lobby lawsuit was that Hunt had said that the article had caused him pain and suffering, interfamily strife. But if his kids had been with him the day when Kennedy was killed, why did he have to keep reminding him that he hadn’t killed JFK? His kids were 14, 13 and 10 at the time. He said he had to “keep reminding them.” He never called them as witnesses in this case. The plaintiff rested.

Marchetti testified; Lane ignored the wrong predictions that Marchetti had made.

Lane then presented the testimony of Marita Lorenz. She was the daughter of a West German luxury cruiser captain. She was infatuated with Castro and became his mistress. She had his kid. The CIA began its terrorist raids on Cuba soon after the revolution. Francisco Fiorini, an American-born Cuban, was head of Castro’s air force. He was approached by the CIA to spy for them; he agreed. He then went by the name of Frank Sturgis. He convinced Lorenz that Castro was planning to kill her and their kid. He got her to move to Miami. She was given a mission to kill Castro. She reluctantly agreed. She was afraid she’d be searched at customs so she hid the poison capsules in her cold cream jar. They dissolved in the jar.

Back in Miami, Sturgis had organized many other anti-Castro Cuban exiles, many of whom would later carryout the Watergate caper. Lorenz claimed that Hunt and Sturgis met with Jack Ruby on November 21, 1963 to discuss the assassination. She left. Sturgis hooked up with her later and confessed the crime to her. She said that Hunt was at the motel doling out money to everyone. Hunt’s lawyers had garnered evidence that Hunt was not in Dallas on the 22nd.

Under cross-examination Marita was even more devastating. She said that Howard Hunt’s code name was “Eduardo.” (This is verified elsewhere). She said that in the caravan from Miami to Dallas that day, there were Cuban dissidents and Jerry Patrick Hemming. Among the Cubans were Pedro Diaz Lanz and 2 brothers named Novis. She said that “Operation 40” was the name for CIA covert actions against Cuba.

Newton Scott Miler was called to be a rebuttal witness. Lane allowed this without objection because he wanted the jury to hear all the evidence and thus make up their minds objectively. He testified that Lorenz was not a CIA member. He said that Sturgis was also not a member of the CIA. Lane embarrassed Miler by asking him for proof that Miler had worked for the CIA; Miler was unable to. Miler had been the CIA agent who oversaw the interrogation of Nosenko, the KGB member who had determined that Oswald was an American agent not a defector. Nosenko would later defect to the U.S. after being held in interrogation for 3 ½ years. He was never questioned by the WC either.

The verdict found for the defendant. The jurors said they believed that Hunt was somehow connected to the assassination of JFK and that the case should be investigated further.

Epilogue: Operation Zapata
The media did not publish the results of the case the way they did when Hunt had one the 1st trial. Many have shifted from their stance that “you should trust Earl Warren and his commission,” to “we may never know.” This book was difficult to publish. It was eventually published at the time that Oliver Stone was wrapping up JFK. His film was criticized for suggesting that LBJ undid JFK’s policy of withdraw from Vietnam. Many books which try to unravel the mythology of JFK imply that: 1. his death was good for the country, 2. he was not a dove but a Cold Warrior, 3. and/or that LBJ took exactly the same course of action that Kennedy would have.

Was George Herbert Walker Bush in the CIA in the 60’s? He says that he was not. A memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the State Department, entitled “Assassination of President John F. Kennedy” states that George Bush of the CIA was briefed by FBI members on November 23rd while Lee Harvey Oswald was in police custody. A source in the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in ’60 or ’61, using his oil business as cover. In 1988, Bush said this was untrue, it was another George Bush. In 1953, he formed Zapata Petroleum Corporation with Hugh Liedtke. They were based out of Houston, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was befriended by George DeMohrenschildt after returning from the Soviet Union. DeMohrenschildt was a Texas oil man too. He was killed by a gun shot on his way to testify for the HSCA. In his personal telephone book he had Bush’s phone number and address. The name of the Bay of Pigs operation was called Operation Zapata. The names of the ships carrying the Cuban exiles were called “Barbara” and “Houston.”

Appendix
Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald
Due to the amount of media attention that has condemned Oswald, Lane asks that readers suspend certainty until he makes his case.

Point 1
A number of witnesses saw Oswald in the window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. Subsequently, the “number of witnesses” dwindled to 1 but he was not able to recognize Oswald.

Point 2
Oswald’s palm print appeared on the rifle. But eh FBI now states that “no palm prints were found on the rifle.”

Point 3
Oswald’s palm print appears on the cardboard box found at the window. Oswald ate greasy fried chicken for lunch. But no fingerprints were found.

Point 4
Paraffin tests said that Oswald had recently fired a gun. His face was clean, however.

Point 5
The rifle, an Italian carbine, was purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald under an assumed name. DA Wade announced that the murder weapon was a German Mauser. The next day, the FBI said that Oswald had purchased a Mannlicher-Carrcano and then the murder weapon became that model.

Point 6
Oswald was in possession of false identification. This was announced after the FBI said that Oswald had bought a Mannlicher-Carrcano under an assumed name.

Point 7
Oswald was seen in the TSBD by a policeman right after the shooting. Oswald’s description was radioed out as a suspect because he was missing later. This explanation has several flaws. Many employees were “missing” because of the parade. Oswald was in no hurry to leave. The police didn’t secure the building until later.

Point 8
Marina said the rifle was missing. Marina’s testimony has been all over the map on this question, however.

Point 11
Darryl Click said he picked up Oswald in his taxi and took him home. Then it became William Whaley, not Darryl Click. Then it was “not to Oswald’s home, just in that direction.”

The Question of Motive
Oswald’s motives for killing Kennedy are thin: he was crazy and a communist. Many have said that he was fond of JFK, however.

Time, Place and Oswald
The FBI marksmen could not duplicate Oswald’s shooting performance. Surgeons who attended the President at Parkland Memorial Hospital all said that the throat wound was an entry wound. Portions of the bullets were in Kennedy and Connally.

The Great American Mystery—A review of Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment
Norman Mailer praises Lane’s book and his effort to uncover the truth. Lane presents several examples of reasonable doubt. For example, why did 2 cops say they found a Mauser not a Mannlicher-Carrcano? Mrs. Markham was the only eyewitness of the Tippit murder. She insists that the murder took place at 1:06 but the WC says she’s wrong; it took place at 1:16pm. Mrs. Markham, in an interview with Lane, said the man who killed Tippit was short, heavy and had bushy hair.

Two reporters who were investigating Ruby were murdered. Warren Reynolds, another Witness, was shot in the head but recovered. He had seen a man fleeing the Tippit murder but said it wasn’t Oswald. Darrel Wayne Garner told his sister-in-law that he had shot Reynolds. The charges were dropped because Garner had an alibi from Nancy Jane Mooney, a dancer who used to work for Ruby. 8 days later, Miss Mooney was arrested for disturbing the peace. After being in her cell for 2 hours, she hanged herself. Witness Nancy Perrin Rich said that Ruby was a gun-runner for Cubans. William Whaley, the taxi driver, was killed in ’65 in a car crash.

The Man Who Wasn’t There: ‘George Bush,’ CIA Operative
Helms denies that Bush was in the CIA in the 60’s. But Hoover’s memo says differently. It said that due to Kennedy’s death the FBI was worried that anti-Castro Cubans would use the President’s death and the surrounding confusion to reinvade Cuba. This memo was released along with 98,000 pages of information that was released in ’77 and ’78. President Ford fired DCI William Colby to impede the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from concluding its investigation. Ford named Bush as Colby’s successor. If Bush was a former CIA member, then it is reasonable to assume that he would halt the SSCI in its tracks. He did, by the way. Bush was implicated in the contra affair and with General Noriega’s drug smuggling. The anti-Castro Cubans were also drug runners. Bush was the 1st president to be a former DCI, his only credential to the Presidency, other than his ambassadorship.

Where Was George
VP Bush has said that the memo from Hoover refers to George William Bush, a low ranking CIA man in the early 60’s.

The rest of the book
The rest of the book deals with LBJ’s policy in Vietnam and contrasts it with Kennedy’s. Lane makes that case that LBJ promised peace in Vietnam and likened the war there to WWI and WWII.