MOVIE/VHS REVIEW -- Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment"
David Von Pein
One Of The Very First "Pro-Conspiracy" Films Ever Made About The
Assassination Of President Kennedy......
Flawed In Many Respects -- But This Film Exudes A Calm "Quietness" (No
Music Score At All) And A Nostalgic '60s-Like Quality That Make It
Eminently Watchable, Whether You Happen To Be A Conspiracy Theorist Or
A Lone-Assassin Proponent......
http://www.amazon.com/dp/6301045718
http://imdb.com/title/tt0060920/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent JFK-assassination researcher/conspiracist Mark Lane serves as
narrator and interviewer in his self-produced black-and-white
documentary film "Rush To Judgment" (which was filmed in 1966 and first
seen in movie theaters on June 2, 1967). The film is based on Mr.
Lane's book of the same title.
Video and audio quality on the "MPI Home Video" VHS Tape are pretty
good. The VHS specifications include a Hi-Fi Mono soundtrack and a
Standard (Full-Frame) TV aspect ratio (1.33:1). Running time is 98
minutes (in "SP" mode). There is no music score at all.
The videotape version of this movie has been saddled with an added
(unnecessary) subtitle -- "The Plot To Kill JFK" (which, for some
reason, appears above the true title of the motion picture, "Rush To
Judgment", on the VHS packaging).
In "Rush", Mark Lane attempts to make a case to favor the idea that the
Warren Commission was wrong and that a conspiracy existed in the 1963
assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. In a subjective and
very narrow and limited fashion, it would appear that Mr. Lane has,
indeed, succeeded in providing some indications of a JFK assassination
conspiracy during the course of this film.
But the "totality" of all the evidence in the JFK case leads not to
conspiracy, in my view, but just the opposite. The "whole" story tells
me that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin that Friday in Dallas.
I think Mr. Lane's pro-conspiracy arguments are weak in many regards.
Let me give a few examples of why I say that......
To quote directly from the film (with Mr. Lane interviewing Dealey
Plaza witness James Simmons):
MARK LANE -- "I show you a picture, published by the Warren Commission
as Commission Exhibit number 2215, which is a view of the Triple
Underpass area. I ask you if you'd be good enough to mark with this
pen, with an X, the area where you thought the shots came from, and
where you saw the smoke."
Mr. Simmons then proceeded to place an "X" behind the picket (wooden)
fence on top of the Grassy Knoll.
Mr. Lane asked another witness, J.C. Price, the exact same question
(and keep in mind he phrased it with the word "Shots" [plural] --
"Where did you hear the shots come from?"). And Mr. Price, just like
Simmons, placed an "X" in the same area behind the fence on the Knoll.
Now, the problem I have with this type of testimony and "X"-placing
demonstrations with regard to these witnesses is that they are
claiming, in essence, that ALL the shots fired that day had come from
that SAME frontal (Knoll) location -- which we KNOW is wrong. There is
no question that shots came from the Texas School Book Depository
Building (to the REAR of JFK's limousine).
Therefore, since we KNOW that rear shots did occur (a certainty due to
the back wounds sustained by both John Kennedy and John Connally), the
testimony of witnesses claiming that shots originated from ONLY the
front becomes patently weak (and obviously inaccurate).
Below are some other parts of "Rush To Judgment" that are quite weak in
supporting his general conspiracy claims and beliefs......
Mr. Lane spends a few minutes on a very odd conspiracy argument --
where he seems to be doubtful as to whether Lee Oswald rode as a
passenger on a Dallas city bus just after the shooting on November 22,
1963. Lane argues that bus driver Cecil McWatters could never
positively identify Oswald as having been on his bus that Friday
afternoon.
But, even if McWatters' personal observations re. LHO are fuzzy, this
in no way indicates Oswald WASN'T on the bus. Because Lane conveniently
ignores the positive IDing of Oswald by fellow bus passenger Mary E.
Bledsoe. PLUS the fact that a bus transfer (dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63")
was found on Oswald after his arrest (Warren Commission Exhibit
"CE381").
Mrs. Bledsoe recognized Oswald immediately when she saw him on the bus
on 11/22; she had seen him just a little over a month earlier (in
October 1963), when Oswald had rented a room from Mrs. Bledsoe for a
few days (from October 7th to 14th), before Bledsoe decided she didn't
like him anymore, and, in effect, kicked him out.
So for Mark Lane to leave this "doubt" in the minds of unaware people
watching his film that Oswald just might NOT have been on the bus is,
in my view, both irresponsible and deliberately deceptive -- because
besides McWatters (and the physical evidence of the paper bus transfer
found in LHO's pocket), there was a MUCH more credible witness to
Oswald's having been on the bus -- and that was a person who actually
KNEW Oswald and had seen him up close on prior occasions -- that being
Mrs. Bledsoe.*
* = Not to mention the fact that Oswald HIMSELF told police that he was
on the bus. Now, yes, Oswald was an expert liar -- but I fail to see
WHY he'd even want to lie about something so benign in nature, like
being on a bus for a few minutes on November 22. So, in this rare
instance, it would seem Oswald was telling the truth to the
authorities. Especially when his bus story can be backed up with other
evidence -- the paper transfer and Mrs. Bledsoe.
And -- There's also Mr. Lane's misleading his audience with the
"Lovelady / Oswald in the TSBD Doorway" issue -- which, of course, had
been cleared up even by the time Lane produced his film in mid-1966.
Lovelady testified that it was he, and not Oswald, in the doorway. And
yet, still, Lane seems to infer in his film that the issue was still
"undecided" in some manner -- hinting that it just may have been
Oswald, after all, in the Depository doorway. This is wholly misleading
by Mr. Lane.
Plus -- There's the several minutes Mr. Lane spends on the rather
unimportant matter of the "blacked-out" car license plate in a picture
of General Edwin Walker's home. He quotes several passages of Marina
Oswald's testimony regarding the blacked-out plate -- but I fail to see
where it really leads to "conspiracy" in any manner.
Mr. Lane also interviews Penn Jones, who rambles on and on about the
"eight mysterious deaths" that had occurred since the assassination
(from late 1963 to the time Jones was interviewed, which I think was
approx. late Spring or early Summer of 1966).
Jones' list included one man who was evidently killed by a "karate chop
to the throat". Can't recall who that was right at this moment; but it
had me rolling with laughter because it sounded so odd.
One thing I've always found amusing about the various CT "Mystery
Deaths" lists is the randomness to such lists; and the fact that some
of these so-called "Mystery Death" compilations have people listed that
died MANY YEARS after the assassination.
A good example of the "randomness" in this regard would be Lee Bowers,
Jr. -- Many people believe Bowers was "rubbed out" by conspirators in
some manner (with plotters "arranging" the deadly car crash that killed
Bowers on August 9, 1966, just three months after he was interviewed on
camera by Mark Lane for the "Rush To Judgment" film).
But Bowers' CTer-perceived "Mystery Death" is particularly amusing when
viewed from a "Why Bother Killing Bowers Now?" point-of-view. ....
I.E.: Why kill him AFTER he's already spilled his guts to Mark Lane ON
FILM?
The time to have "rubbed out" Mr. Bowers would have been BEFORE he was
captured on film talking about things that seem (on the surface) to be
"conspiratorial" in nature re. the JFK assassination.
For any conspirators to want to kill Bowers after he's already talked
is like closing the gate after the horse has already gotten loose. What
the heck is the point?
In addition -- Why didn't the "Mystery Death Conspiracy Squad" go after
and "take care of" S.M. (Skinny) Holland, too? Holland, in fact, should
have probably been NUMBER ONE on the conspirators' "Death List",
because his testimony of hearing a fourth shot and seeing smoke on the
Grassy Knoll was far more damaging to the "conspiracy team" than a lot
of other witnesses who died in what some theorists believe was a
"shady" manner. And this "Death Squad" was apparently in the habit of
"rubbing out" witnesses who went against the Official WC/LN grain after
the assassination.
Why, then, wasn't Holland silenced? Along with Jean Hill? And Bill
Newman? And Arnold Rowland? And Richard Dodd? And J.C. Price? And
Gordon Arnold? And Ed Hoffman? And James Simmons? And Paul O'Connor?
And many other MORE DIRECT eyewitnesses to the crime, who told of
events that went AGAINST the Official Warren Commission version of the
assassination?
I read (someplace) that some bozo had concocted his own
"Post-Assassination Mystery Death" list -- and on it he placed a person
who was simply visiting JFK's gravesite at Arlington Cemetery, and had
a heart attack and died while leaning over the eternal flame! LOL!
(Think THAT'S stretching the "Death List" a tad too thin?)
Holland, et al, were all people who have said things since 11-22-63
that could have been very damaging to the conspirators' ultimate goal
of "getting away with murder", but were they killed off in "mysterious"
ways? No.
The "Mystery Deaths" lists have always been a "pick-and-choose" type of
CT argument that fails to hold any water -- especially when some
authors of such random lists ALSO include "mystery killings" that
occurred DECADES after the assassination. Such stretched-out "killings"
are simply ludicrous.
I'm somewhat surprised that Dorothy Kilgallen's death wasn't mentioned
in the Mark Lane film. Kilgallen died on November 8, 1965, and many
people added her to their "Mysterious JFK Assassination Deaths" list as
well.
Kilgallen was found dead in her home of a suspected drug overdose just
hours after she had finished up what turned out to be her last
appearance on the long-running TV game show "What's My Line?" (a
program which featured Dorothy as a regular panelist for 15 years). She
evidently had secured an exclusive interview with Oswald's killer, Jack
Ruby, and, according to some people, Kilgallen was about to "blow the
lid off the JFK case". Many conspiracy theorists, therefore, feel she
was murdered because of the information she possessed.
I do not believe Kilgallen was "rubbed out" by conspirators, but I'm
surprised that she wasn't at least mentioned in this film, due to the
untimely nature of her death and her supposed "connections" to the JFK
case.
I've often wondered why the so-called "plotters" in a "Patsy" plot just
simply didn't arrange Oswald's own "suicide" right there within the
Sniper's Nest on the Depository's 6th Floor on November 22nd?
These plotters obviously were going to need to have him killed off at
some point after 12:30 PM on November 22 (per what many/most CTers seem
to believe, due to these same CTers also believing that Jack Ruby was
"hired" to "rub out" the Patsy), so why wait 48 hours to do it (and
give Oswald a chance to spill any facts he may know about ANYTHING
related to the assassination plan)?
I realize that some CTers might retort here with the following --- "It
was necessary to have Oswald CAUGHT (physically) and detained by police
and officially CHARGED with the assassination".
However, if these conspirators who have "arranged" everything else so
WELL and completely (right down to apparently PLANTING not only the
bullet shells, the paper bag, the rifle, and CE399 -- but also
"planting" the two bullet fragments inside the limousine itself which
were conclusively proven to have come from Oswald's rifle) -- then the
PHYSICAL capture of Oswald would really be unnecessary from the
plotters' POV (since his "Guilt" had been so thoroughly
"pre-arranged").
Letting Oswald live to say even those four words to a Live TV audience
-- "I'm just a patsy!" -- does not make sense from the conspirators'
POV, IMO.
Portions of Mark Lane's film give the impression that Lane is grasping
at straws -- any straws he can find -- to prove some peripheral point
that MIGHT (in his opinion) lead to the idea of conspiracy.
I like "Rush To Judgment" for its intriguing and forever-frozen-in-time
"Mid-1960s Feel" that it emits from start to finish. But, overall, the
film is a weak effort, in my view, to prove that a conspiracy existed
in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
David Von Pein
February 2005
June 2006