General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination [View all]zappaman
(20,606 posts)"Lane claims the jurors accepted his premise that the CIA was responsible for murdering the president. Lane wrote, The evidence was clear, she [jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong] said. The CIA had killed President Kennedy. Hunt had been part of it, and that evidence, so painstakingly presented should now be examined by the relevant institutions of the United States trial government so that those responsible for the assassination might be brought to justice.[16]
However, two of the jurors told the Miami Herald they did not believe Lane had proven that Hunt was a co-conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that the jurys verdict was absolutely not the reason for the verdict. We were very disgusted and felt (the article) was trash, she said, . . . . The paper published material that was sloppy but it wasnt malicious. While Lane avoids literally telling lies in his book, he uses the same convoluted expositions he used before the Miami jury to persuade his readers that Hunt was indeed guilty of conspiring to kill the president.[17]
Lane trades on the sound presumption that the vast majority of his readers have no way of knowing what hes doing. In the Lane tradition of carefully concealing from his readers any information that might undermine his thesis, he portrays Hunt as having only two alibi witnesses at the trial, and denigrates these because they were CIA employees. But in fact there were three CIA employees who testified at the trial, and three witnesses (two of Hunt's children and a domestic) who swore to the 1974 Rockefeller Commission that Hunt was in the Washington area, and not in Dallas, on the day of the assassination.[18]
In support of his allegations against Hunt, Lane makes reference to an alleged confession. The Huntcircumstances of St John Hunts interview with his father are fraught with problems, not least the fact E. Howard Hunt was heavily medicated at the time he confessed, but Lane does not disclose this to his readers. Hunts memoirs were published posthumously and he vehemently denies any involvement in the JFK assassination. Hunt did . . . not believe the CIA had anything to do with JFKs death. He even discloses that Lanes irresponsible accusations caused his family great suffering. Additionally, Hunts confession is nothing more than his own guesswork and ruminations as to who killed JFK. He may even have used this opportunity to vent his spleen over those in government who did not give him any support after he was indicted in the Watergate affair.[19]"
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html