Rush to Judgment

[richard...@comcast.net]

In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".

This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1

[John McAdams]

Mark Lane is a sleazy character.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bill Clarke]

In article <p4lfp8p4uvnvnqasa...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

He is also a dishonest character. Of course I guess that is part of being
sleazy.

Bill Clarke

[timstter]

Mark Lane repeatedly lied in his book, Rush To Judgment.

It was also revealed that his work back then was partially funded by
money from the KGB.

His stuff is not trustworthy.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[curtjester1]

On May 18, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

I would just befriend Mark and ask him personally on Facebook before I
believed anything like this.

McAdams sure does a lot of bitchin'.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

You're going to what? Ask Mark Lane on Facebook if he is a sleaze? You
don't know Mark Lane, do you? I do. WC defenders have to resort to slander
because they don't have any facts.

[timstter]

Harold Weisberg wasn't a WC defender, yet HE didn't have too much good
to say about Mark Lane:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Weisberg%20Harold/Cointelpro%20Lane%20Monograph/Item%2001.pdf

Such a shame the kids couldn't play nice, eh Marsh?

Concerned Regards,

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Why not discuss how Mark Lane treated Nolan Potter in Rush to
Judgment? That might be informative for those who are on the fence
about this.

So, do you think Lane treated Nolan Potter's statement fairly and
accurately, or did he treat it dishonestly?

What do you think about Lane's treatment of Potter?

Hank

[curtjester1]

On May 22, 12:57 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Several top authors are on Facebook and have friended me. I haven't read
any of his books, but I do have a question for him for a point in a
particular thread here. Some have sites or blogs too. I have got
personal replies from Jim Marrs, JVB, Groden, Ernest, Fetzer, B. Oliver,
Boldin, Kritzberg, and I'm sure a few more. I'd rather deal with that,
than just read stuff people have on their sites they use for target
practice. Mark Lane comes up in my Facebook potential friend list all the
time. If you have so many people that are in the same friends with others
e.g. JFK research, they will put them in your radar.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Why not ask me a slew of irrelevant questions? Your questions are always
loaded with unproven assumptions.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Yeah, way to duck the invitation to debate the facts of what Potter said
versus what Mark Lane said Potter said. If you think my point about how
Lane treated a witness' statement in his book RUSH TO JUDGMENT is
irrelevant to a thread entitled "Rush To Judgment", I wonder in what post
you think it would be more appropriate. You're funny beyond words.

And while you claim my "questions are always loaded with unproven
assumptions", curiously, you neglect to point out any examples, from the
above post or any others.

Here's Nolan Potter's statement, Tony (left page):

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=171
664

Why don't you post the parts that Mark Lane got right in his book RUSH TO
JUDGMENT about Nolan Potter's statement?

Failure to post the accurate parts will be seen as an admission there are
NO accurate parts in Mark Lane's treatement of Nolan Potter in Rush To
Judgment.

Ben Holmes ducked the challenge to debate this on Amazon. Will you duck it
too?

Hank

[mainframetech]

On May 18, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
> >Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>
> >This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>
> Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>

And with that judgment in hand, do we have your opinion of the
people in the film that gave statements of what they saw that day?
Especially the ones that gave information that disagreed with the
'official' theories put out by the WC?

[John McAdams]

On 23 May 2013 20:38:48 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On May 18, 3:22�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> >In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
>> >Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>>
>> >This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>>
>> Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>>
> And with that judgment in hand, do we have your opinion of the
>people in the film that gave statements of what they saw that day?
>Especially the ones that gave information that disagreed with the
>'official' theories put out by the WC?
>

Lane uses them very selectively. For example, he interviews people
who thought they heard shots from the GK, and has them say that they
thought the shots came from the GK.

But then he interviews Charles Brehm, and does *not* ask him from
where the shots came.

He apparently knows Brehm would say "up at the corner of Houston and
Elm."

He's acting like a lawyer, not an investigator.

Of course, he entirely ignores the larger number of witnesses who
thought the shots came from the direction of the Depository. He tells
his viewers *nothing* about them.

>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>

Read the other stuff at my link, will you!

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/23/2013 9:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 May 2013 20:38:48 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 18, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
>>>> Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>>>
>>>> This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>>>
>> And with that judgment in hand, do we have your opinion of the
>> people in the film that gave statements of what they saw that day?
>> Especially the ones that gave information that disagreed with the
>> 'official' theories put out by the WC?
>>
>
> Lane uses them very selectively. For example, he interviews people
> who thought they heard shots from the GK, and has them say that they
> thought the shots came from the GK.
>

And you call that dishonest? That he found witnesses who thought they
heard shots from the GK and got them to say that they thought the shots
came from the GK? Are you for real?

Some of those same witnesses said theu were told by the WC that all the
shots came from the TSBD so that's what they believe.

> But then he interviews Charles Brehm, and does *not* ask him from
> where the shots came.
>
> He apparently knows Brehm would say "up at the corner of Houston and
> Elm."
>
> He's acting like a lawyer, not an investigator.
>

He was the defense lawyer. The prosecution had all the powers of the
government.

> Of course, he entirely ignores the larger number of witnesses who
> thought the shots came from the direction of the Depository. He tells
> his viewers *nothing* about them.
>

He couldn't interview everyone. You didn't interview everyone. The WC
didn't interview everyone. Your study is very biased, just like the HSCA.

>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>>
>
> Read the other stuff at my link, will you!
>

Got any more slander up your sleeves?
Drugs, prostitutes? Is there no level you won't sink to?

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 9:26 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 23 May 2013 20:38:48 -0400, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 18, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >> >In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
> >> >Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>
> >> >This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>
> >> Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>
> >  And with that judgment in hand, do we have your opinion of the
> >people in the film that gave statements of what they saw that day?
> >Especially the ones that gave information that disagreed with the
> >'official' theories put out by the WC?
>
> Lane uses them very selectively.  For example, he interviews people
> who thought they heard shots from the GK, and has them say that they
> thought the shots came from the GK.
>

So those that heard shots from the GK were truthful. Yes,
manipulative the questioner may be, but the statements from witnesses
were accurate as to the experiences they had.

> But then he interviews Charles Brehm, and does *not* ask him from
> where the shots came.
>
> He apparently knows Brehm would say "up at the corner of Houston and
> Elm."
>
> He's acting like a lawyer, not an investigator.
>

Hmm. Sounds like Arlen Specter and his buddies in some instances.
Like when they questioned Tomlinson and he didn't give the answer they
wanted about which stretcher he found the bullet on. The choosing of
witnesses for the WC was fraught with as much 'lawyering' as Mark Lane
uses to make his point.

> Of course, he entirely ignores the larger number of witnesses who
> thought the shots came from the direction of the Depository.  He tells
> his viewers *nothing* about them.
>
>
>
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> Read the other stuff at my link, will you!
>

There's too much to read it all. And you have wisely saved both
sides of the question.

> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[timstter]

Google my series, *Lying The Mark Lane Way* and you'll see examples of
the lies Lane told vis-a-vis the film and witnesses, especially early
in the series.

The fellow is about as blatant a liar as they come.

Helpful Regards,

[timstter]

On May 19, 5:22 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Let's not forget what Mother Jones magazine said about Lane:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Citizens%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry/Item%20003.pdf

The Left's leading hearse chaser?! OUCH! That's GOTTA hurt!!

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 10:41 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 10:38 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On May 18, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > >In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
> > > >Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>
> > > >This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>
> > > Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>
> >   And with that judgment in hand, do we have your opinion of the
> > people in the film that gave statements of what they saw that day?
> > Especially the ones that gave information that disagreed with the
> > 'official' theories put out by the WC?
>
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> > > .John
> > > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Google my series, *Lying The Mark Lane Way* and you'll see examples of
> the lies Lane told vis-a-vis the film and witnesses, especially early
> in the series.
>
> The fellow is about as blatant a liar as they come.
>

Typical. The roast of the WC faithful. Unhappy when anyone dares to
commit heresy by showing witnesses that were intentionally left out of
testifying because their information would suggest conspiracy, which the
WC had deemed invalid (one more of their wacky theories). One can run down
Mark Lane all they like, but the witnesses he has brought forward were
speaking of their experiences, not lies cooked up by Lane. I've heard
many complaints that Lane acted like a lawyer and not an investigator, but
they won't come out and admit that the lawyers at the WC were doing the
same thing in presenting the weird theories of their own.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 10:41 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 19, 5:22 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > >In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
> > >Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>
> > >This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>
> > Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Let's not forget what Mother Jones magazine said about Lane:
>

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%2...

>
> The Left's leading hearse chaser?! OUCH! That's GOTTA hurt!!
>

LOL! The article calls Lane an 'agitator'...:) I must agree. He
agitated the WC and other 'officials' to a great degree. But they
certainly needed it, given the wacky theories they were shoving off onto
the public in the JFK case. The 'lone nut' theory and the Single Bullet
Theory were two of the wackiest!

The article then calls his efforts "futile quests for noble causes"
which is the one place they were honest. Noble quests, but against the
'officials' these quests were doomed to fail. There is much unhappiness
that Lane joined the defense of James Earl Ray, but in time he was to be
vindicated. The King family decided that Ray was not the killer of MLK
and sued a man they believed was the person responsible for the death of
King, and a jury decided that Ray was innocent and a fellow named Lloyd
Jowers was found guilty of the murder in concert with unnamed agencies of
the government! Here's the wording from the DOJ:

"However, in King v. Jowers, a recent civil suit in a Tennessee state
court, a jury returned a verdict finding that Jowers and unnamed others,
including unspecified government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to
assassinate Dr. King."

From: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/mlk/part2.php

After announcing the decision of the jury, the article spends a lot of
time trying to prove that the government had nothing to do with the
murder...:)

While the decision was in a civil case, the defendant Lloyd Jowers
publicly admitted his involvement in the murder. That still left James
Earl Ray in prison from his criminal trial, but exonerated of the murder.
After the decision that government agencies were responsible, there was no
effort to reopen the murder case to find the unnamed parties to the
murder.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/24/2013 10:41 PM, timstter wrote:
> On May 19, 5:22 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
>>> Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>>
>>> This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>>
>> Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Let's not forget what Mother Jones magazine said about Lane:
>
> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Citizens%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry/Item%20003.pdf
>
> The Left's leading hearse chaser?! OUCH! That's GOTTA hurt!!
>

Cheap slander. Lane is a defense attorney.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/24/2013 10:41 PM, timstter wrote:

> On May 24, 10:38 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:> On 18 May 2013 15:20:26 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>> In 1967, Mark Lane methodically exposed the lies of the Warren Commission
>>>> Report in his book "Rush to Judgment".
>>
>>>> This is the film version of "Rush to Judgment":
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Ze7_OuZpJfI&NR=1
>>
>>> Mark Lane is a sleazy character.
>>
>> And with that judgment in hand, do we have your opinion of the
>> people in the film that gave statements of what they saw that day?
>> Especially the ones that gave information that disagreed with the
>> 'official' theories put out by the WC?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>
>>> .John
>>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Google my series, *Lying The Mark Lane Way* and you'll see examples of
> the lies Lane told vis-a-vis the film and witnesses, especially early
> in the series.
>
> The fellow is about as blatant a liar as they come.
>
> Helpful Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>

Are you drinking the same water down there as Mel Gibson?

[timstter]

You must've missed what Weisberg wrote about Lane, Chris:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Weisberg%20Harold/Cointelpro%20Lane%20Monograph/Item%2001.pdf

That's your idea of *the roast of the WC faithful* is it?

The reality is that people from ALL sides of the debate have concluded
that Lane is a liar.

That's simply because he is.

When you check the citations he gives, many times they don't support
the lies he's written in his books.

That's simply a provable fact, as I demonstrate below.

[mainframetech]

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%2...

>
> That's your idea of *the roast of the WC faithful* is it?
>
> The reality is that people from ALL sides of the debate have concluded
> that Lane is a liar.
>
> That's simply because he is.
>
> When you check the citations he gives, many times they don't support
> the lies he's written in his books.
>
> That's simply a provable fact, as I demonstrate below.
>

I repeat...'a roast'. When anyone mentions the witnesses that Lane
found and gave a voice to (they were usually left out of WC testimony),
the WC faithful immediately begin the old record going about what a
terrible guy Mark Lane was. I've 3 times now tried to get people to think
of the witnesses that Lane brought to the fore, and the very first thing
that's done is an attack on Lane and the witnesses are forgotten. I
wonder if that's the purpose in the Mark Lane attacks, whether he is an
SOB or a 'wonderful guy' maybe getting on the Lane subject in a negative
way gets us off the subject of the witnesses and what they saw or heard.

I've even said fine, whatever you think of Lane, what of the witnesses
who mostly seem normal average people that saw something that was part of
the JFK case. Nope. Ignored. Right back to attacking Mark Lane. I can
see with some of the witnesses, what they had to say would be bad for the
WC faithful, so it would make some sense that they would try to change the
subject.

Acquilla Clemmons was one of those cases. She not only said that she
saw a different man than Oswald reloading his gun after the Tippit
killing, but she saw him gesturing to Oswald to go on ahead without him.
That might let Oswald off of the Tippit killing, but also implies a
conspiracy. On top of all that, she said she was told by the FBI that she
could get hurt if she came out with her story. It kept her quiet for a
couple years, but fortunately Mark Lane ferreted her out or we would have
never heard her evidence.

On top of the above about Acquilla Clemmons, her description of the guy
reloading his gun matched the description that Roger Craig gave for the
guy that drove the Rambler that Oswald got into in front of the TSBD.
She had no way of knowing what that description was when she saw the guy.

Chris

[tims...@gmail.com]

Yeah, that's a GOOD question.

I say Lane flat out LIED when dealing with Potter's statement in his dishonest book.

What do YOU think, Marsh?

How does Lane think he can get away with such OUTRAGEOUS lying?

Concerned Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

I am not allow to say what I think. You are protected by your buddy
McAdams.

> How does Lane think he can get away with such OUTRAGEOUS lying?
>

You keep getting away with things here because you are protected by
McAdams.

[tims...@gmail.com]

You are not allow [sic] to say what you think? There is no need to play
the martyr, Marsh.

BTW, let's EXAMINE this blatant lie by Lane. Here is what the relevant
part of Nolan Potter's FBI statement says(it is XXII H 834):

QUOTE ON:

POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book
Depository Building rising above the trees.

QUOTE OFF

And here is what Lane says on page 40 of Rush To Judgment:

QUOTE ON:

Another person on the overpass also said that he saw smoke, but the FBI
report of that interview is so vague that it is difficult to determine
precisely where he placed the smoke. 41

QUOTE OFF

This reference he footnotes as 41. XXII, 834, ie the very SAME Nolan
Potter FBI document!

If there is a more blatant LIE in JFK research than the one Lane told
about Potter's FBI statement then it could only be one told by Lane
himself.

Case CLOSED on whether Mark Lane ever lied in his book Rush To Judgment.

He DEMONSTRABLY did.

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't rely on Libel all your life.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Translation: Marsh can't deal with the documented FACT that Mark Lane lied
in Rush To Judgment.

Telling the truth is NOT libel, Marsh.

Mark Lane IS a liar in Rush To Judgment.

And quite a few other places as well...

Corrective Regards,