Mark Lane Responds

[Frankie Vegas]

I emailed Mark Lane, who I admire greatly, last year. Looks like Skyhorse is trying to corner the market on blockbuster JFK books in time for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. They are also putting out later this year a new edition of Phil Nelson's LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination.

I just got this response recently from Mark Lane:

Dear Robert:

I apologize for not having responded to your email before now.

I suddenly found an enthusiastic publisher for the most important book I have ever written. Just as Rush To Judgment proved that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the lone assassin of President Kennedy, my new book, Last Word, presents evidence proving that the CIA was responsible.

More about that later.

Based upon your own work, I think you will find Last Word quite interesting.

Mark

This thread should be more correctly entitled " Mark Lane doesn't respond "

It appears to me to be a hit and run book promtion.

In Oswald's Ghost DVD Mark Lane said that with a wink and a nod from Jim Garrison he took the Zapruder film from out of Garrisons office and had 1000 copies made..

What happened to all those Zapruder bootleg copies. ?

I just read in Mr Lane's book 'The Last Word' that he sent out all the bootleg copies to the media in hopes that they would play, or discuss the film.

[John Dolva]

What did they do with them?

[Frankie Vegas]

What did they do with them?

It seems the media chose to ignore them.

[Tommy Wilkens]

Mr. Lane

Just wanted to tell you how much those of us who care about the truth and justice in President John Kennedy's assassination admire your work and thank you for leading the way and giving us all hope that just maybe one day the real truth will finally be allowed .It is a true honor to be in the same Forum with you .

Thank you

Tommy Wilkens

[Mark Lane]

I have just received the first review of my autobiography, Citizen Lane. Citizen Lane will be published on June 1, 2012 by Chicago Review Press.

The review is by Kirkus Review and will be available to subscribers to Kirkus Review on April 1, 2012. If you are not a subscriber, it will be available to the public two weeks before publication date of Citizen Lane, or about May 15, 2012.

I am not permitted to publish the review at this point since Kirkus has property rights to its product, which I respect. However, I am permitted to say that the review was one of the best I have ever seen and Kirkus concluded that Citizen Lane was the story of my efforts on behalf of underdogs for six decades and "as one would expect from a person of this caliber, Lane's story focuses on the needs of those he served rather than the extraordinary part he played in so many lives."

My thanks to Kirkus for its kind words. If you read Citizen Lane and have comments about it, I would be pleased to hear from you.

Thank you all for your support in the efforts of so many to make our government more responsive to its people.

Mark Lane

March 30,2012

[Pat Speer]

I have just received the first review of my autobiography, Citizen Lane. Citizen Lane will be published on June 1, 2012 by Chicago Review Press.

The review is by Kirkus Review and will be available to subscribers to Kirkus Review on April 1, 2012. If you are not a subscriber, it will be available to the public two weeks before publication date of Citizen Lane, or about May 15, 2012.

I am not permitted to publish the review at this point since Kirkus has property rights to its product, which I respect. However, I am permitted to say that the review was one of the best I have ever seen and Kirkus concluded that Citizen Lane was the story of my efforts on behalf of underdogs for six decades and "as one would expect from a person of this caliber, Lane's story focuses on the needs of those he served rather than the extraordinary part he played in so many lives."

My thanks to Kirkus for its kind words. If you read Citizen Lane and have comments about it, I would be pleased to hear from you.

Thank you all for your support in the efforts of so many to make our government more responsive to its people.

Mark Lane

March 30,2012

Who would you like to see play you in the movie? (Paul Giamatti could nail it, IMO. Still, he's a bit hard to look at. Maybe Clooney then. He looks good in a beard,)

[Mark Wengler]

Hello Mr lane

Thank you for all the work you have done on the JFK Assassination. I look forward to reading more posting from you

Mark

[Patrick Block]

Anyone who hasn't read Last Word should get a copy. I'm very much looking forward to Citizen Lane!

[Michael Hogan]

I do hope Mr. Lane will consider taking a few questions about his storied career.

For example, I wonder about something Perry Raymond Russo testified about before the New Orleans Grand Jury on March 27, 1967. This was a rather tense session, the transcript of which was first published in Patricia Lambert's FALSE WITNESS, in which the grand jury gave Russo a grilling for not having come forward with his story sooner. Russo blurted out, "Mark Lane, you know him . . . he told me that he uncovered information three days after the assassination that put Shaw and Ferrie in the midst of it. Why isn't anybody asking him why he kept it secret for so long?"

The full transcript is here:

http://www.jfk-online.com/russo327.html

Did you really say that to Perry Russo, Mr. Lane?

Dave

From Jim Garrison and Mark Lane vs. the CIA

by David Reitzes

Excerpt:

"Were it not for Mark Lane's dishonest spin on these events, in fact, it is unlikely that Garrison could

have so successfully rewritten history with his revisionist 1988 memoirs, On the Trail of the Assassins."

http://www.jfk-online.com/jgmlvscia.html

At the bottom of the article are links to: More on Mark Lane and his manipulation of evidence:

[David G. Healy]

Dave, what is so hard to believe about that?

Its pretty accurate information is it not?

I mean you are an expert at this are you not? You know more about New Orleans than Joan Mellen, Paris Flammonde, Bill Davy, myself and Garrison himself right?

Within days of Kennedy's murder was not David Ferrie looking for his library card? Did he not ask Oswald's former landlady for it? Kind of funny huh?

Further, at around that same time, did not Ferrie then start calling former CAP members trying to locate a picture of him with Oswald? Geez Dave, do you think its the Ciravalo photo? And did not the FBI know about this? Meaning they could have gotten the photo? And used it to indict him right then and there?

You know why don't you Davey?

Because its a crime to lie to FBI agents. And in his 11/25 interview he said he did not know Oswald in the CAP, right? Therefore this would not just have been perjury, but it would have been obstruction of justice. SInce Ferrie was trying to eliminate evidence to cover his ass.

Why would he do that Dave? Is this the way innocent men act in the wake of a murder?

Concerning Clay Shaw, now c'mon. You know that whole thing don't you? The DeLoach memo to Tolson. Do I have to spell it out for you? Got temporary amnesia Davey Boy?

Here it is: "The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December of 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." (italics added)

Geez Dave, kind of interesting right? Especially the several parties part. So not only did the FBI know that Ferrie was acting kind of funny in the wake of the assassination. They also had been furnished information about Shaw from several sources. And since everyone today, even you, knows that Shaw and Ferrie knew each other, that makes it even more fishy.

But here's the capper. Recall the trial of Clay Shaw? The legal proceeding that Lambert's good buddy Phelan tried to keep a damper on through his daily briefings of the press--geez is that fact in Lambert's book Davey? Well, at the trial a funny thing happened. Garrison wanted to know about the FBI inquiry into the assassination. You know, what did they have on Shaw, Ferrie and Banister at that time. It had to have been a lot since DeBrueys and Kennedy knew all about Banister. I mean Kennedy was even mentioned as abacker of FDC, along with Banister.

So Kennedy gets on the stand. But before any questions can be asked, Harry Connick stops the proceedings and calls Washington. (BTW Dave, its not the singer, its the Justice Dept flunky who later was the DA who replaced Garrison. Kind of a coincidence right? Except its not.) John MItchell says Kennedy can be asked very limited questions about the following. But here goes:

Q: Mr. Kennedy, prior to your interview with Dean Andrews, were you engaged in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.?

A: Yes I was.

Now, please note. Prior means before right Davey? The interview with Andrews was on the 23rd. Because Andrews said Clay Bertrand had called him and asked him to defend Oswald. So we are talking something like 24 hours after the assassination. So let us keep that in mind as we go to question number two:

Q: Mr. Kennedy, were you looking for Clay Bertrand in connection with your overall investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy?

A: I was.

So, from the above, it appears that the FBI was looking for a guy named Bertrand, maybe even before the Andrews call. Plus they were later to get all kinds of leads about Clay Shaw. But geez Dave, did they ever find Clay Bertrand, I mean who he really was?

You bet they did.

So, from this, yep there was a lot of interesting stuff out there about Shaw/Bertrand and Ferrie within just days of the assassination.

Is it on your web site?

me thinks Dave Reitzes has left the building.... sigh

[Mark Lane]

My apologies to all. The pressures of trying cases and completing my autobiography, Citizen Lane, have delayed my responses. Some of the questions are in fact answered in that book and others in Last Word. I chose some of the questions at random and respond to them now.

Instead of thanking each of you by name who said kind words about my work, please allow me to thank each of you for your continued support and efforts to seek a more responsive and truthful government.

1. No, I did not mention George Herbert Walker Bush in Rush to Judgment. I did report in Plausible Denial (pp. 329-33) the facts about Bush, the former director of the CIA and later president, and his suspicious engagement which demonstrates that he had been involved in the CIA before the assassination of President Kennedy -- a statement that he falsely denied -- as well as his likely involvement during 1961 with the CIA’s planned Bay of Pigs invasion. I was asked why I have not spoken much about that subject. I published it in full in the New York Times bestselling book, Plausible Denial, and I discussed it during lectures on the Kennedy Assassination. Since I was not asked by network TV to discuss anything in Plausible Denial, I did what I could.

2. You ask about Marita Lorenz and wonder what led me to believe that she was credible, since she has been dismissed by many, including the HSCA. I did not invent or originally locate Marita Lorenz. She was employed by agencies of the US government including police agencies. How do I know that? I have seen the documents of the agencies addressed to her and discussing her. She was in fact a witness first selected by the government. I have found much corroboration for crucial statements she has made.

While Blakey was general counsel for the HSCA, he spent a considerable amount of time covering up the evidence and the leads uncovered by his predecessor, especially if they led toward intelligence agencies.

3. E. Howard Hunts “deathbed confession” was not exactly a confession. I have interviewed his son, St. John, and I considered him to be credible.

4. Gerald Posner and I disagree about the assassination of JFK in just about every respect. When he asked me to represent him regarding another matter, he also said publicly that if Oswald had lived and I was his attorney, he felt certain that Oswald would have been acquitted. That statement was useful in explaining to many undecided Americans that Oswald could not have been convicted. I cannot discuss my attorney client relationship with Mr. Posner or any other client except to say that I felt he was being unfairly treated when he was piled on by the news media – the same guys who did the same thing to me without justification for many years.

5. Yes, I made copies of the Zapruder film which Jim Garrison gave to me for that purpose. I played some on television and left them at the station. I showed some on radio, asking the host to describe the scene to his audience and left copies there, and mailed copies to all the leaders of the news at that time in the United States, starting with Walter Cronkite. I would not call them “bootleg copies” since they were part of American history and though originally suppressed by the government, they always belonged to the American people.

6. I don’t know where Hunt and Sturgis were during the shooting, but I know they were in Dallas the day before the shooting helping to plan the operation. If they had any sense of self preservation, they got out of town before the shots were fired.

[John Dolva]

My apologies to all. The pressures of trying cases and completing my autobiography, Citizen Lane, have delayed my responses. Some of the questions are in fact answered in that book and others in Last Word. I chose some of the questions at random and respond to them now.

Instead of thanking each of you by name who said kind words about my work, please allow me to thank each of you for your continued support and efforts to seek a more responsive and truthful government.

1. No, I did not mention George Herbert Walker Bush in Rush to Judgment. I did report in Plausible Denial (pp. 329-33) the facts about Bush, the former director of the CIA and later president, and his suspicious engagement which demonstrates that he had been involved in the CIA before the assassination of President Kennedy -- a statement that he falsely denied -- as well as his likely involvement during 1961 with the CIA's planned Bay of Pigs invasion. I was asked why I have not spoken much about that subject. I published it in full in the New York Times bestselling book, Plausible Denial, and I discussed it during lectures on the Kennedy Assassination. Since I was not asked by network TV to discuss anything in Plausible Denial, I did what I could.

2. You ask about Marita Lorenz and wonder what led me to believe that she was credible, since she has been dismissed by many, including the HSCA. I did not invent or originally locate Marita Lorenz. She was employed by agencies of the US government including police agencies. How do I know that? I have seen the documents of the agencies addressed to her and discussing her. She was in fact a witness first selected by the government. I have found much corroboration for crucial statements she has made.

While Blakey was general counsel for the HSCA, he spent a considerable amount of time covering up the evidence and the leads uncovered by his predecessor, especially if they led toward intelligence agencies.

3. E. Howard Hunts "deathbed confession" was not exactly a confession. I have interviewed his son, St. John, and I considered him to be credible.

4. Gerald Posner and I disagree about the assassination of JFK in just about every respect. When he asked me to represent him regarding another matter, he also said publicly that if Oswald had lived and I was his attorney, he felt certain that Oswald would have been acquitted. That statement was useful in explaining to many undecided Americans that Oswald could not have been convicted. I cannot discuss my attorney client relationship with Mr. Posner or any other client except to say that I felt he was being unfairly treated when he was piled on by the news media – the same guys who did the same thing to me without justification for many years.

5. Yes, I made copies of the Zapruder film which Jim Garrison gave to me for that purpose. I played some on television and left them at the station. I showed some on radio, asking the host to describe the scene to his audience and left copies there, and mailed copies to all the leaders of the news at that time in the United States, starting with Walter Cronkite. I would not call them "bootleg copies" since they were part of American history and though originally suppressed by the government, they always belonged to the American people.

6. I don't know where Hunt and Sturgis were during the shooting, but I know they were in Dallas the day before the shooting helping to plan the operation. If they had any sense of self preservation, they got out of town before the shots were fired.

bump

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Question for Mark Lane: do you think Lyndon Johnson was a plotter in the JFK assassination? Have you read Phillip Nelson's book and what do you think of it?

[Mark Wengler]

Mr Lane

What was the most interesting case that you ever did not counting anything to do with the JFK assassination?

Mark

[Michael Hogan]

Question for Mark Lane: do you think Lyndon Johnson was a plotter in the JFK assassination? Have you read Phillip Nelson's book and what do you think of it?

Sounds like a loaded question.

Five minutes talking to Madeleine Brown will tell you more about the what happened in the JFK assassination than the complete works Melanson, Newman and Gaeton Fonzi. Anyone that does not have Lyndon Johnson as one of the primary players in the JFK assassination simply does not know what they are talking. It is one of the key markers I look for when evaluating the credibility of a JFK researcher.