What do you think?
Rate this book
Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK?
The follow-up to the author's best-selling Rush to Judgment, which criticized the Warren Commission's report on the Kennedy assassination, attempts to demonstrate that the CIA helped plan the president's murder. Reprint. 75,000 first printing. Tour.
411 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
42 people are currently reading
653 people want to read
About the author
Mark Lane
54 books24 followersMark Lane was an American attorney, New York state legislator, civil rights activist, and Vietnam war-crimes investigator. Sometimes referred to as a gadfly, Lane is best known as a leading researcher, author, and conspiracy theorist on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
October 19, 2019
Phenomenal - essential.
Did you know that a 1985 Florida District Court jury concluded that the CIA killed JFK?! It was a defamation case, but the indefatigable and empirical lawyer Mark Lane took it as his only chance to get a hearing after 22 years of research on the JFK assassination, and the jury concurred. Whether or not you want to dismiss this – and that depends on what you make of Marita Lorenz– why didn't a single national newspaper report it? It seems only the S Florida Sun Sentinel covered it at the time.
The head juror said in the press conference after the case:"Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy."
He does write like a lawyer - tersely with a talking-irony that doesn't work so well in writing. But such a powerful story and his passion for evidence and truth shine through.
Did you know that a 1985 Florida District Court jury concluded that the CIA killed JFK?! It was a defamation case, but the indefatigable and empirical lawyer Mark Lane took it as his only chance to get a hearing after 22 years of research on the JFK assassination, and the jury concurred. Whether or not you want to dismiss this – and that depends on what you make of Marita Lorenz– why didn't a single national newspaper report it? It seems only the S Florida Sun Sentinel covered it at the time.
The head juror said in the press conference after the case:"Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy."
He does write like a lawyer - tersely with a talking-irony that doesn't work so well in writing. But such a powerful story and his passion for evidence and truth shine through.
January 15, 2014
While I thoroughly enjoyed this book it was NOT an easy read. Mark Lane is well versed in the Law. He is obviously an experienced Attorney with many years of study in the science. He spoke just above his audience to often lose me. I found myself stopping to look up words outside of my non-legal vocabulary. On a positive note he lays out distinctively what are known to be FACTS and they have clearly convinced me on what I had suspected all along... prior to reading this... and that is that the CIA did in fact kill JFK. They clearly had motive and were exceptionally experienced in the art of cover up. This book was well worth the extra effort needed to push through it.
May 4, 2020
So I mainly started reading this book because I got annoyed at Chomsky for his repeated assertions that "conspiracies don't matter, only structures do", when he at the same time loves to talk about the Fred Hampton police execution as highly illustrative of certain structural problems. Coupled with his repeated attempts to make his readers despise Kennedy, and his general tendency to disparage domestic repression by the state as incidental or irrelevant it kinda suggested to me that maybe Noam doth protest a bit too much.
And indeed, after reading this, it seems pretty clear to me that his repeated dismissive contributions to the discussion surrounding the kennedy assassination are politically motivated, intended to contribute to political apathy, when this coming out would've done wonders to delegitimize both the CIA that Noam professes to find so evil specifically, and the national security state / US Empire more generally.
The moral of this tale: do not trust the intentions of affluent men who work for the military-industrial complex (at MIT), while saying "they don't see the problem with that", and virtue-signaling that they really care about the people who are oppressed by his employers. Instead, start learning about marxism/ml/communism (e.g. through https://redmenace.libsyn.com/ and https://podtail.com/en/podcast/marx-m... ), and read Dirty Truths as well as The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism
And indeed, after reading this, it seems pretty clear to me that his repeated dismissive contributions to the discussion surrounding the kennedy assassination are politically motivated, intended to contribute to political apathy, when this coming out would've done wonders to delegitimize both the CIA that Noam professes to find so evil specifically, and the national security state / US Empire more generally.
The moral of this tale: do not trust the intentions of affluent men who work for the military-industrial complex (at MIT), while saying "they don't see the problem with that", and virtue-signaling that they really care about the people who are oppressed by his employers. Instead, start learning about marxism/ml/communism (e.g. through https://redmenace.libsyn.com/ and https://podtail.com/en/podcast/marx-m... ), and read Dirty Truths as well as The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism
August 19, 2025
Mark Lane’s case implicating the CIA in devising and executing the assassination of President Kennedy through the defamation trial of E. Howard Hunt v. Liberty Lobby.
“Plausible Deniability” was an education in legal practice as much as it was a case against the CIA, and both were expertly conveyed. Although the book’s structure felt uneven in certain parts, Lane managed to summarize and explain complicated legal procedures and historical background while striking home his plea that the judicial system be allowed to prevail and those responsible for the murder of John F. Kennedy be brought to justice.
P.S. the epilogue revealing President George H.W. Bush’s alleged role in the CIA’s Bay of Pig’s operation was shocking and deserves more research in its own right. I find it fascinating and certainly concerning that no less than FOUR presidents serving after JFK have connections to his death or subsequent investigation (LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush). A connection doesn’t necessarily point to guilt, but it does make you consider who ultimately benefited from President Kennedy’s killing.
“Plausible Deniability” was an education in legal practice as much as it was a case against the CIA, and both were expertly conveyed. Although the book’s structure felt uneven in certain parts, Lane managed to summarize and explain complicated legal procedures and historical background while striking home his plea that the judicial system be allowed to prevail and those responsible for the murder of John F. Kennedy be brought to justice.
P.S. the epilogue revealing President George H.W. Bush’s alleged role in the CIA’s Bay of Pig’s operation was shocking and deserves more research in its own right. I find it fascinating and certainly concerning that no less than FOUR presidents serving after JFK have connections to his death or subsequent investigation (LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush). A connection doesn’t necessarily point to guilt, but it does make you consider who ultimately benefited from President Kennedy’s killing.
December 6, 2017
Absolute classic. Lawyers will be thrilled to read this, since it is essentially the chronicle of a trial, but even non-lawyers will be captivated. Lane did a true service to history and justice in writing this gem.
November 30, 2013
Mark Lane’s brash and brusque demeanor can be off putting, even to his fellow JFK conspiracy theorists, but no other researcher’s criticisms of the Warren Report run as deep or as far back in time as his. Mark Lane was criticizing the Warren Report’s conclusions even before the official report was released. As a defense attorney, he was appalled by the lack of due process in Oswald’s arrest and interrogation (with no lawyer present), the rush to judgment that declared his guilt, and the absence of any defense attorney to speak in Oswald’s defense before the Warren Commission that he wrote a Defense Brief for Oswald, which was published in the National Guardian on December 19, 1963 (and is included in the appendices of this book). His book Rush to Judgment, published in 1966, will always be a pioneering and landmark book on the JFK assassination. That being said, I was most interested in reading Plausible Denial.
Lane’s main focus has always been on the CIA’s possible involvement in the assassination. No one can now deny the CIA’s complicity in a cover-up of information regarding Oswald and the facts of the case, but proving the involvement of The Company in the actual assassination is much more difficult. It’s not as if Lane ever had the chance to question some of his prime suspects in a court of law – not until 1985, that is, when he agreed to represent the Liberty Lobby in a retrial for charges of libel brought against it by E. Howard Hunt. Back in 1976, the Liberty Lobby published an article by ex-CIA agent Victor Marchetti in The Spotlight that placed Hunt in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and indicated he had some role in the JFK assassination. Hunt sued for libel and won the initial court case, but an appeals court threw out that decision, setting the stage for a retrial in Miami in 1985. Despite the anti-Semitic reputation of Liberty Lobby, Mark Lane (a Jew) took the case, relishing the chance to get Hunt and top CIA officials on the witness stand. It is a fact that Lane won the case. In the process, he also claims that he convinced the jury that Hunt was involved in a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
The lion’s share of this book is devoted to Lane’s preparations for the trial, the depositions he took of leading CIA suspects, and the events of the trial itself. Frankly, though, Lane convinced me of nothing more than the fact that Howard Hunt has changed the details concerning his whereabouts on November 22, 1963 on more than one occasion. I can place little faith in Hunt’s testimony, but Lane really offered no proof that definitely placed Hunt in Dallas on the fateful day. It was interesting to hear testimony from the likes of Richard Helms and James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, but I took little in the way of substance from what I read.
Additional research about this book has lowered my opinion of its contents – and of Mark Lane himself – considerably. The information that Lane conveniently ignored in this case is quite telling. Lane’s main witness tying Hunt to Dallas was Marita Lorenz, who claimed to be a CIA operative and an ex-mistress of Fidel Castro – yet this woman claimed (in the deposition taken by Lane himself) to have spent considerable time training with Oswald for the Bay of Pigs invasion during the time that Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Thus, Marita Lorenz really has no credibility. Lane also quotes the foreperson of the jury as saying he had proved to her that Hunt was complicit in the JFK assassination – but he mentions nothing of the several other jurors who disagreed and said that the only reason they ruled in favor of Liberty Lobby was because Hunt failed to prove any malice in the printing of the Marchetti article (which was, after all, the very basis of the lawsuit).
Given the fact that the evidence Mark Lane produced in Plausible Denial failed to convince me of his argument that Hunt and others in the CIA killed Kennedy (and I say this as a person who believes the CIA was complicit in the assassination in some capacity), I was prepared to give this book an average review. Additional knowledge of the evidence Lane chose to hide from the jury and his readers (even though that is pretty much what lawyers do on a regular basis) lowers my opinion of my book even further. I really do not think there is much information contained in Plausible Denial that JFK assassination researchers can benefit from.
Lane’s main focus has always been on the CIA’s possible involvement in the assassination. No one can now deny the CIA’s complicity in a cover-up of information regarding Oswald and the facts of the case, but proving the involvement of The Company in the actual assassination is much more difficult. It’s not as if Lane ever had the chance to question some of his prime suspects in a court of law – not until 1985, that is, when he agreed to represent the Liberty Lobby in a retrial for charges of libel brought against it by E. Howard Hunt. Back in 1976, the Liberty Lobby published an article by ex-CIA agent Victor Marchetti in The Spotlight that placed Hunt in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and indicated he had some role in the JFK assassination. Hunt sued for libel and won the initial court case, but an appeals court threw out that decision, setting the stage for a retrial in Miami in 1985. Despite the anti-Semitic reputation of Liberty Lobby, Mark Lane (a Jew) took the case, relishing the chance to get Hunt and top CIA officials on the witness stand. It is a fact that Lane won the case. In the process, he also claims that he convinced the jury that Hunt was involved in a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
The lion’s share of this book is devoted to Lane’s preparations for the trial, the depositions he took of leading CIA suspects, and the events of the trial itself. Frankly, though, Lane convinced me of nothing more than the fact that Howard Hunt has changed the details concerning his whereabouts on November 22, 1963 on more than one occasion. I can place little faith in Hunt’s testimony, but Lane really offered no proof that definitely placed Hunt in Dallas on the fateful day. It was interesting to hear testimony from the likes of Richard Helms and James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, but I took little in the way of substance from what I read.
Additional research about this book has lowered my opinion of its contents – and of Mark Lane himself – considerably. The information that Lane conveniently ignored in this case is quite telling. Lane’s main witness tying Hunt to Dallas was Marita Lorenz, who claimed to be a CIA operative and an ex-mistress of Fidel Castro – yet this woman claimed (in the deposition taken by Lane himself) to have spent considerable time training with Oswald for the Bay of Pigs invasion during the time that Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Thus, Marita Lorenz really has no credibility. Lane also quotes the foreperson of the jury as saying he had proved to her that Hunt was complicit in the JFK assassination – but he mentions nothing of the several other jurors who disagreed and said that the only reason they ruled in favor of Liberty Lobby was because Hunt failed to prove any malice in the printing of the Marchetti article (which was, after all, the very basis of the lawsuit).
Given the fact that the evidence Mark Lane produced in Plausible Denial failed to convince me of his argument that Hunt and others in the CIA killed Kennedy (and I say this as a person who believes the CIA was complicit in the assassination in some capacity), I was prepared to give this book an average review. Additional knowledge of the evidence Lane chose to hide from the jury and his readers (even though that is pretty much what lawyers do on a regular basis) lowers my opinion of my book even further. I really do not think there is much information contained in Plausible Denial that JFK assassination researchers can benefit from.
October 7, 2007
Ultimately, Mark Lane's book comes off as more self-serving than it does truthful or provable. Much of the text is self-praise for a court victory against E. Howard Hunt in a civil case. Hunt, for those who don't know, was a former CIA operative who, after bungling operation after operation and earning a reputation as one of the most ineffective agents in the history of the CIA, an arguably ineffective organization, went on to bungle a third-rate robbery of a then little-known hotel called The Watergate. Catching E. Howard Hunt in a lie is not a hard thing to do by any stretch, and Lane's belief that doing so represents proof that Hunt killed Kennedy is more than a little far-fetched. In the court case, Lane represented the right-wing group Liberty Lobby (his previous legal work including representing Jim Jones, in case you're wondering how ethical the author is as a lawyer). Liberty Lobby was a group being sued by Hunt for implicating Hunt in the assassination of J.F.K. Hunt initially sued and won a settlement, but Lane had this overturned on appeal. Hunt already had CIA connections established, and had been one of the "Plumbers" arrested in the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration, so it's not like Lane was going after Mother Theresa here. By winning his case in defense of Liberty Lobby's right-wing newspaper, Lane claims he had proven that the jury believed the allegation that Hunt had been involved in the assassination of J.F.K. His arguments in the book are largely based on this case. What Lane fails to mention is that the jurors saw the case as an issue of freedom of press and found that the article, though repugnant and untrue, was printed without "actual malice". Lane hints at this truth but manages to dance around it and weave a tale of the CIA's supposed plot to assassinate JFK out of nothing. The fact is, even if Hunt WAS involved in the assassination, it wasn't proven in this court case, and the final verdict had absolutely nothing at all to do with JFK or his death. It was a "freedom of the press" issue from start to finish for the jury, who sided in Liberty Lobby's favor even though Liberty Lobby is perhaps even more reprehensible than E. Howard Hunt (if such a thing were possible). Lane's legal work may be substantial but his journalistic work is not, and no matter how he tries to spin it, he did not "prove" that E. Howard Hunt was involved in a plot to assassinate the President. (Hunt, meanwhile, may have confessed as much near his death; that doesn't change the fact that Lane didn't "prove" anything, and neither does this book. It's also worth noting two facts: that deathbed confession was most likely a lie propogated by an estranged son, and secondly, if the CIA were going to assassinate the President of the United States - no small task - they'd have not handed the task to an agent that was, by that time, regarded almost universally as one of the most inept in the entire business. Look how he handled the Watergate burglary for Nixon - you think they'd hire THAT guy to kill JFK?) After reading this book, I found it more likely that Mark Lane was a C.I.A. disinformation agent himself than that he'd proven any conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Essentially, this book is nothing more than a mediocre slight-of-hand trick by a third-rate magician posing as a lawyer.
NC
NC
September 5, 2019
Lots of very interesting questions posed by Mark Lane, continuing on from his early probe into the Warren Commission verdict 'Rush to Judgement'. Also interesting is the more recent tape recording (2003) made by E.Howard Hunt, of his deathbed confession of involvement/knowledge of 'the big event' in Dallas.
'Plausible Denial' hangs around the Hunt v Liberty Lobby libel trial in Miami in '78 that Lane defended. The jury found in favour of Lane and his client, the evidence strongly supported by testimony from Marita Lorenz telling of a motor caravan of two vehicles that traveled from Miami to Dallas just prior to the assassination with Lorenz, Hunt, Sturgis/Fiorini, Hemming and some Cubans with high powered rifles in the trunk....and a meeting with bag man Jack Ruby in a Dallas Hotel.
Although I read this book back in 2003, some fifteen years later I have acquired my own copy to add to my own library collection. In 2017 I asked researcher John Newman what he thought of the Lorenz story. For the record he stated that he did not believe it.
There are errors in the text, for instance Lane states that Yuri Nosenko was tortured by CIA during his incarceration in the U.S. CIA's Tennent 'Pete' Bagley refutes this. See his 'Spy Wars'.
Also in the photo section showing the model of Dealey Plaza, the DPD motorcycle escort were never in the positions shown.
'Plausible Denial' hangs around the Hunt v Liberty Lobby libel trial in Miami in '78 that Lane defended. The jury found in favour of Lane and his client, the evidence strongly supported by testimony from Marita Lorenz telling of a motor caravan of two vehicles that traveled from Miami to Dallas just prior to the assassination with Lorenz, Hunt, Sturgis/Fiorini, Hemming and some Cubans with high powered rifles in the trunk....and a meeting with bag man Jack Ruby in a Dallas Hotel.
Although I read this book back in 2003, some fifteen years later I have acquired my own copy to add to my own library collection. In 2017 I asked researcher John Newman what he thought of the Lorenz story. For the record he stated that he did not believe it.
There are errors in the text, for instance Lane states that Yuri Nosenko was tortured by CIA during his incarceration in the U.S. CIA's Tennent 'Pete' Bagley refutes this. See his 'Spy Wars'.
Also in the photo section showing the model of Dealey Plaza, the DPD motorcycle escort were never in the positions shown.
April 3, 2023
Wow. I did not expect to like this book as much as I did. I felt it was excellently written and hard to put down. Without disclosing my own opinion about the topic for fear of being murdered, lol, Mr. Lane lays it all out on the line. His arguments are impeccably researched and the information is fascinating. Is anything we learned about history in high school true? Because I am beginning to wonder.
March 18, 2020
MARK LANE offers info on
Kennedy assasination
Fidel Castros wife had american associates
CIA was new and Bush sr cover ups
Warren commission had over site
Oswald was involved with russia
There evidence of conspiracy
Dead president to achieve public discouse
Kennedy assasination
Fidel Castros wife had american associates
CIA was new and Bush sr cover ups
Warren commission had over site
Oswald was involved with russia
There evidence of conspiracy
Dead president to achieve public discouse
November 2, 2016
I lost interest, very detailed.
August 10, 2017
Cause me to question everything about JFK's murder.
April 8, 2018
Quite dry and didn't finish it. Better by far is Anthony Summers 'Not in Your Lifetime'.
August 9, 2022
Likewise, a pioneering work on whodunnit, that dirty deed that changed the course of history. I gave a copy to all my friends, but I'm pretty sure they didn't read it!
February 23, 2023
Interestingly, Plausible Denial covers the history of disputes with the main stream. Mr. Lane, being a defense attorney, was one of the first to publish an article with questions regarding the evidence against Oswald. From 1963 until the publishing of this book in 1991, Lane accounts the different abs and flows of JFK research. I found that quite fascinating.
As part of the history, Mr. Lane details the efforts of US government agencies to stifle free speech, interfere with publishing, and control reporters.
A final note concerning truth. Sometimes two individuals on the same side can disagree. Mr. Lane wrote the script for Oliver Stone's JFK movie. Stone changed the movie up to what Stone thought would be more entertaining. Lane lamented this in Plausible Denial stating, "[the rewrite] serve[s] the interest of the box office and film critics rather than history. Thinking of simply the film itself, this is true. However, the world is larger than one film. In reality, this film sparked interest and an outcry. The outcry caused congress to pass laws to release JFK documents. In fact, the movie has more influence on history via document releases than the movie itself could ever have. There's not really a point, but it makes me think.
As part of the history, Mr. Lane details the efforts of US government agencies to stifle free speech, interfere with publishing, and control reporters.
A final note concerning truth. Sometimes two individuals on the same side can disagree. Mr. Lane wrote the script for Oliver Stone's JFK movie. Stone changed the movie up to what Stone thought would be more entertaining. Lane lamented this in Plausible Denial stating, "[the rewrite] serve[s] the interest of the box office and film critics rather than history. Thinking of simply the film itself, this is true. However, the world is larger than one film. In reality, this film sparked interest and an outcry. The outcry caused congress to pass laws to release JFK documents. In fact, the movie has more influence on history via document releases than the movie itself could ever have. There's not really a point, but it makes me think.
January 20, 2025
Mark Lane is presumably a better lawyer than he is an author. Interesting read that’s difficult to put down, however, sometimes Lane’s writing style can fall a bit flat. By far the most telling part of this work is the admittance by CIA officials that they had an active interest in suppressing Lane’s work.
April 4, 2025
This contained a lot of good information. However, it was over-dramatized in the telling of the information. It would have been much shorter and easier to read without dramatic tellings of, for example, how people entered the room and what they were wearing, etc. Overall a good source on the topic.
September 29, 2022
Written by a lawyer, wordy and slow to wade through all of the transcripts and parade of witness and testimony, this is a thought provoking work. It just moved along very slow. Not sorry to have spent the time to read it.
August 27, 2024
This was an entirely satisfying page turner. Lane easily makes the case a hundred different ways that we do not have the actual explanation of what went down that day. This excellent book goes a long way towards saying what did not happen the day Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA.
June 17, 2020
Answer: Yes
May 30, 2021
Brilliant as usual from Mark Lane. The shocking testimonies given as part of the case Mark Lane describes in this book are revealing to say the least.
February 22, 2025
Interesting read. It is part autobiography (with some whining), part legal "how to/what this means" (which was beneficial if you are a lay person) and some of the investigation.
October 10, 2014
I was thoroughly entertained and thought this book well done. As a lawyer Mark Lane is obviously a talented communicator and can put forward a compelling argument. He had me hook, line, and sinker. And had I been reading this 20+ years ago when it came out I'm thinking I would have been a true-believer as I want to believe there was a conspiracy.
Mr Lane will think less of me as I'll admit here for the first time that from the many books I've read and the documentaries I've seen, I'm now convinced that the chances for a conspiracy are extremely remote. I now believe all shots came from the rear, most likely the Texas School Book Depository 6th Flr window. But was it Lee Harvey Oswald who pulled the trigger?
4 Stars
★ = Horrid waste of time
★★ = May be enjoyable to some, but not me
★★★ = I am glad I read it
★★★★ = Very enjoyable and something I'd recommend
★★★★★ = A rare find, simply incredible
Mr Lane will think less of me as I'll admit here for the first time that from the many books I've read and the documentaries I've seen, I'm now convinced that the chances for a conspiracy are extremely remote. I now believe all shots came from the rear, most likely the Texas School Book Depository 6th Flr window. But was it Lee Harvey Oswald who pulled the trigger?
4 Stars
★ = Horrid waste of time
★★ = May be enjoyable to some, but not me
★★★ = I am glad I read it
★★★★ = Very enjoyable and something I'd recommend
★★★★★ = A rare find, simply incredible
July 5, 2010
This book is a real ball buster to be quite forward about it. Mark Lane holds nothing back. This book was written during the first Bush administration in the early nineties. He makes some startling comparisons and and has some overwhelming evidence surrounding E. Howard Hunt's involvement (and the mysterious coincidence that Richard Nixon was in Dallas the same day Kennedy was murdered). Mark Lane is one of the originators of demanding the truth from the American government in regards to its lies. He was also hired by Lee Harvey Oswalds mother (Mark Lane is a lawyer)to defend her sons name. Remember he was never officially convicted and never faced a trial. So he is to remain the ALLEGED murderer of John Kennedy. These are important facts when dealing with a case this complicated.
May 8, 2013
In 1978 began a legal process involving a suit and counter-suit concerning ex-CIA operative and Cuban invasion leader E. Howard Hunt's presence in Dallas on the day of the Kennedy assassination. Hunt had sued a small, right-wing journal for defamation of character upon their claim to this effect. Lane, on behalf of the journal, Spotlight, convinced a Miami jury that he was apparently present on that day along with Frank Sturgis, another CIA figure, and that the journal had reported the evidence without malice. This claim has since been further substantiated by Hunt's son who claims that his father had told him of his involvement in the assassination of the president prior to his death on 1/23/07.
March 16, 2016
The most interesting part of this book to me was the first section in which Lane told how the House Select Committee on Assassinations was steered away from blaming the CIA and FBI, and how difficult it was for him to get even a mild criticism of the Warren Report published in the media. The details behind the little-publicized trial in which E. Howard Hunt and others disclose more tidbits about the CIA's role in the JFK killing are fairly chilling.
I think when all is said and done, Mark Lane, along with a few others like Penn Jones Jr., will emerge as the true heroes of the campaign to learn the truth about who shot JFK.
I think when all is said and done, Mark Lane, along with a few others like Penn Jones Jr., will emerge as the true heroes of the campaign to learn the truth about who shot JFK.
November 12, 2013
While tedious in spots, this book explains how Mark Lane managed to get a jury in the US to find that that E Howard Hunt, as an agent of the CIA, was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It should not be the first book someone who wants to know more about the assassination should read, it was more readable than some others. I found some chapters fascinating and others hard to get through. Mark Lane likes to give many, many details and spends quite a bit of time explaining the law. But, it was interesting to see how E Howard Hunt's lawsuit of a magazine led to an interesting conclusion.
May 27, 2015
Loved the book. This victory over Hunt was one thing, but the spotlight shone on the JFK murder was greater. The Marita Lorenz testimony by proxy was something else. According to Marita Lorenz, the two-car caravan (from Miami to Dallas) which transported weapons included herself, Frank Sturgis, Jerry Patrick Hemming, two Cuban brothers named Novis and a pilot named Pedro Diaz Lanz. She stated that "they killed Kennedy". Why wasn't this brought to a criminal trial? Garrison couldn't corner Clay Shaw but come on...Great read!!!
September 25, 2007
well, i read dis book to complete my assignment. it is about the assassination of John F Kennedy, the late US president. many people believed that it was not Lee Harvey Oswald alone who killed JFK on November 1963.in this book, it is revealed that there was actualy a plan to kill him by CIA. there were also many evidences to prove this claim. the story was more and less like Prison Break where the CIA find somebody to take the blame for the murder.
March 6, 2013
Mark Lane is one of the best-known and most knowledgeable of the investigators of the Kennedy Assassination. At almost 50 years after this horrific crime, it's hard to keep the details straight even for people like myself who have kept up with most developments. For the novice, this is a great starting point. I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews