From: howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells)
Subject: Re: Best Book on JFK Killing
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:38:24 GMT

>Tom Warner <twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu> Writes
>> Joe Gaut <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> Writes:
>>> Tom Warner <twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu> Writes

>>> I think Lane's "Plausible Denial" can be skipped; at least don't buy it.
>>> It's pretty much a weak cash-in on the movie that tries very hard to make
>>> old material look new.

>> The movie came out after "Plausible Denial" which provided many details for
>> Stone's movie.

> I don't know about the exact timing, but the book was clearly timed to
> coincide with the release of the film. Lane would not deny that. The movie
> did not rely on "Plausible Denial" at all.

The truth is that Lane had written the book years earlier, but could
only find a publisher when the release of the movie JFK was imminent.
This in spite of the fact that his previous book on the subject, _Rush
to Judgement_, had been a number one best seller.  Lane had also had
considerable difficulty finding a publisher for that book.

>> It relates the story of the only time a jury has in effect
>> said "Yes, there was a conspiracy" as Hunt's libel suit was defeated on
>> appeal.

> Not exactly. The burden of proof was on Hunt to show that the "Spotlight"
> article had been false and had defamed him. The article claimed that the
> CIA had a plan to "cut loose" Hunt (a la Oliver North) as a way of keeping
> the CIA as a whole protected. The article also claimed Hunt was in Dallas
> the day of the assassination, and this was what Hunt tried to prove was
> false. He was unable to prove to the jury that he was not in Dallas.
> That doesn't mean Lane proved he was in Dallas, he didn't, it just means
> Hunt was unable to prove he wasn't.

Hunt and his lawyers argued on a number of grounds, including that the
idea that the CIA might have been involved in the assassination of the
President of the U.S. was absurd prima facie. After the trial the
jurors in their statements to the press made it quite clear that their
verdict was based on the fact that the evidence that Lane had
presented convinced them that the CIA, and Hunt in particular, *had*
been involved.  The forewoman explicitly called for a new
investigation. Not surprisingly, the media tried to twist things
around to make it look as if the verdict had been reached on narrow,
technical grounds.  Once again, we have to dig though layers of
disinformation!

The great strength of the book comes from the fact that the trial had
enabled Lane to question under oath people like E. Howard Hunt,
Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and Gordon Liddy regarding the
assassination.

The questioning of Richard Helms and Stansfield Turner alone are worth
the price of the book.  Both men had headed the CIA, but Helms was the
ultimate insider, while Turner was an outsider, brought in by Jimmy
Carter.  Turner came into the proceedings full of bluster and outrage
at the very idea of CIA involvement.  Lane's cross examination,
however, soon revealed that he was completely ignorant of many major
CIA operations that occurred during his tenure.  Helms on the other
hand is extremely evasive.  When asked directly questions like "Was
the CIA involved in the assassination of John Kennedy", he will only
venture responses like, "not to the best of my knowledge", and "I
don't recall".  Needless to say, these hedged responses were the cause
of much consternation for Hunt's attorney's, who labored mightily to
extract the ringing denials they had expected.

Tim Howells <howells@linus.mitre.org>